Cited by 29

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Bias implications of outcome misclassification in observational studies evaluating association between treatments and all-cause or cardiovascular mortality using administrative claims

Desai, Rishi J., Levin, Raisa, Lin, Kueiyu Joshua, Patorno, Elisabetta·2020·Journal of the American Heart Association

Abstract

Background: The bias implications of outcome misclassification arising from imperfect capture of mortality in claims‐based studies are not well understood. Methods and Results: We identified 2 cohorts of patients: (1) type 2 diabetes mellitus (n=8.6 million), and (2) heart failure (n=3.1 million), from Medicare claims (2012–2016). Within the 2 cohorts, mortality was identified from claims using the following approaches: (1) all‐place all‐cause mortality, (2) in‐hospital all‐cause mortality, (3) all‐place cardiovascular mortality (based on diagnosis codes for a major cardiovascular event within 30 days of death date), or (4) in‐hospital cardiovascular mortality, and compared against National Death Index identified mortality. Empirically identified sensitivity and specificity based on observed values in the 2 cohorts were used to conduct Monte Carlo simulations for treatment effect estimation under differential and nondifferential misclassification scenarios. From National Death Index, 1 544 805 deaths (549 996 [35.6%] cardiovascular deaths) in the type 2 diabetes mellitus cohort and 1 175 202 deaths (523 430 [44.5%] cardiovascular deaths) in the heart failure cohort were included. Sensitivity was 99.997% and 99.207% for the all‐place all‐cause mortality approach, whereas it was 27.71% and 33.71% for the in‐hospital all‐cause mortality approach in the type 2 diabetes mellitus and heart failure cohorts, respectively, with perfect positive predicted values. For all‐place cardiovascular mortality, sensitivity was 52.01% in the type 2 diabetes mellitus cohort and 53.83% in the heart failure cohort with positive predicted values of 49.98% and 54.45%, respectively. Simulations suggested a possibility for substantial bias in treatment effects. Conclusions: Approaches to identify mortality from claims had variable performance compared with the National Death Index. Investigators should anticipate the potential for bias from outcome misclassification when using administrative claims to capture mortality.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/jaha.120.016906

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The primary study end point was a composite of hospitalization for heart failure, defined by inpatient primary diagnosis claims with positive predictive value 98%, or all-cause mortality, with sensitivity greater than 99% compared with the National Death Index.

    “The primary study end point was a composite of hospitalization for heart failure (defined by inpatient primary diagnosis claims; positive predictive value = 98%) or all-cause mortality (sensitivity >99% compared with the National Death Index).31,32”
  • Differential or non-differential misclassification of the outcome data could introduce detection bias in NRSI.

    “Differential or non-differential misclassification of the outcome data could introduce detection bias in NSRI [15].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.10.012 · DOI
  2. 10.1002/cpt.1633 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.2337/dc19-0069 · DOI
  4. 10.1001/jamacardio.2019.0198 · DOI
  5. 10.1007/s40264-018-0754-z · DOI
  6. 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32317-7 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1056/NEJMoa1409077 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Suehs B, Bowe A, Davis C, Bunniran S, Uribe C. Mortality ascertainment in a medicare advantage population using health plan enrollment data. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2017;26(suppl 2):306–307.
  9. 10.1093/ije/dyi184 · DOI
  10. 10.1001/jama.2010.920 · DOI
  11. 10.1111/jocs.13379 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Desai, R. J., Levin, R., Lin, K. J., & Patorno, E.
Affiliations
Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics Brigham and Women’s Hospital & Harvard Medical School Boston MA
Venue
Journal of the American Heart Association
Published
2020-09
Volume
9
Issue
17
ISSN
2047-9980
Cited by
29
References
2
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review