Dataset Information

Accuracy of administrative databases in detecting primary breast cancer diagnoses: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To define the accuracy of administrative datasets to identify primary diagnoses of breast cancer based on the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) 9th or 10th revision codes.

Design

Systematic review.

Data sources

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library (April 2017).

Eligibility criteria

The inclusion criteria were: (a) the presence of a reference standard; (b) the presence of at least one accuracy test measure (eg, sensitivity) and (c) the use of an administrative database.

Data extraction

Eligible studies were selected and data extracted independently by two reviewers; quality was assessed using the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy criteria.

Data analysis

Extracted data were synthesised using a narrative approach.

Results

From 2929 records screened 21 studies were included (data collection period between 1977 and 2011). Eighteen studies evaluated ICD-9 codes (11 of which assessed both invasive breast cancer (code 174.x) and carcinoma in situ (ICD-9 233.0)); three studies evaluated invasive breast cancer-related ICD-10 codes. All studies except one considered incident cases.The initial algorithm results were: sensitivity ?80% in 11 of 17 studies (range 57%-99%); positive predictive value was ?83% in 14 of 19 studies (range 15%-98%) and specificity ?98% in 8 studies. The combination of the breast cancer diagnosis with surgical procedures, chemoradiation or radiation therapy, outpatient data or physician claim may enhance the accuracy of the algorithms in some but not all circumstances. Accuracy for breast cancer based on outpatient or physician's data only or breast cancer diagnosis in secondary position diagnosis resulted low.

Conclusion

Based on the retrieved evidence, administrative databases can be employed to identify primary breast cancer. The best algorithm suggested is ICD-9 or ICD-10 codes located in primary position.

Trial registration number

CRD42015026881.

SUBMITTER: Abraha I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6059263 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Accuracy of administrative databases in detecting primary breast cancer diagnoses: a systematic review.

Abraha Iosief I Montedori Alessandro A Serraino Diego D Orso Massimiliano M Giovannini Gianni G Scotti Valeria V Granata Annalisa A Cozzolino Francesco F Fusco Mario M Bidoli Ettore E

BMJ open 20180723 7

<h4>Objective</h4>To define the accuracy of administrative datasets to identify primary diagnoses of breast cancer based on the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) 9th or 10th revision codes.<h4>Design</h4>Systematic review.<h4>Data sources</h4>MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library (April 2017).<h4>Eligibility criteria</h4>The inclusion criteria were: (a) the presence of a reference standard; (b) the presence of at least one accuracy test measure (eg, sensitivity) a ...[more]

PMID: 30037859

Similar Datasets

Project description:Breast, lung and colorectal cancers constitute the most common cancers worldwide and their epidemiology, related health outcomes and quality indicators can be studied using administrative healthcare databases. To constitute a reliable source for research, administrative healthcare databases need to be validated. The aim of this protocol is to perform the first systematic review of studies reporting the validation of International Classification of Diseases 9th and 10th revision codes to identify breast, lung and colorectal cancer diagnoses in administrative healthcare databases.This review protocol has been developed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocol (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. We will search the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library, using appropriate search strategies. We will include validation studies that used administrative data to identify breast, lung and colorectal cancer diagnoses or studies that evaluated the validity of breast, lung and colorectal cancer codes in administrative data. The following inclusion criteria will be used: (1) the presence of a reference standard case definition for the disease of interest; (2) the presence of at least one test measure (eg, sensitivity, positive predictive values, etc) and (3) the use of data source from an administrative database. Pairs of reviewers will independently abstract data using standardised forms and will assess quality using a checklist based on the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy (STARD) criteria.Ethics approval is not required. We will submit results of this study to a peer-reviewed journal for publication. The results will serve as a guide to identify appropriate case definitions and algorithms of breast, lung and colorectal cancers for researchers involved in validating administrative healthcare databases as well as for outcome research on these conditions that used administrative healthcare databases.CRD42015026881.

Project description:BackgroundThough administrative databases are increasingly being used for research related to myocardial infarction (MI), the validity of MI diagnoses in these databases has never been synthesized on a large scale.ObjectiveTo conduct the first systematic review of studies reporting on the validity of diagnostic codes for identifying MI in administrative data.MethodsMEDLINE and EMBASE were searched (inception to November 2010) for studies: (a) Using administrative data to identify MI; or (b) Evaluating the validity of MI codes in administrative data; and (c) Reporting validation statistics (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value, or Kappa scores) for MI, or data sufficient for their calculation. Additonal articles were located by handsearch (up to February 2011) of original papers. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers; article quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool.ResultsThirty studies published from 1984-2010 were included; most assessed codes from the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9th revision. Sensitivity and specificity of hospitalization data for identifying MI in most [≥50%] studies was ≥86%, and PPV in most studies was ≥93%. The PPV was higher in the more-recent studies, and lower when criteria that do not incorporate cardiac troponin levels (such as the MONICA) were employed as the gold standard. MI as a cause-of-death on death certificates also demonstrated lower accuracy, with maximum PPV of 60% (for definite MI).ConclusionsHospitalization data has higher validity and hence can be used to identify MI, but the accuracy of MI as a cause-of-death on death certificates is suboptimal, and more studies are needed on the validity of ICD-10 codes. When using administrative data for research purposes, authors should recognize these factors and avoid using vital statistics data if hospitalization data is not available to confirm deaths from MI.

Project description:ObjectiveHeart failure (HF) is an important covariate and outcome in studies of elderly populations and cardiovascular disease cohorts, among others. Administrative data is increasingly being used for long-term clinical research in these populations. We aimed to conduct the first systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting on the validity of diagnostic codes for identifying HF in administrative data.MethodsMEDLINE and EMBASE were searched (inception to November 2010) for studies: (a) Using administrative data to identify HF; or (b) Evaluating the validity of HF codes in administrative data; and (c) Reporting validation statistics (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value [PPV], negative predictive value, or Kappa scores) for HF, or data sufficient for their calculation. Additional articles were located by hand search (up to February 2011) of original papers. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers; article quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool. Using a random-effects model, pooled sensitivity and specificity values were produced, along with estimates of the positive (LR+) and negative (LR-) likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratios (DOR = LR+/LR-) of HF codes.ResultsNineteen studies published from 1999-2009 were included in the qualitative review. Specificity was ≥95% in all studies and PPV was ≥87% in the majority, but sensitivity was lower (≥69% in ≥50% of studies). In a meta-analysis of the 11 studies reporting sensitivity and specificity values, the pooled sensitivity was 75.3% (95% CI: 74.7-75.9) and specificity was 96.8% (95% CI: 96.8-96.9). The pooled LR+ was 51.9 (20.5-131.6), the LR- was 0.27 (0.20-0.37), and the DOR was 186.5 (96.8-359.2).ConclusionsWhile most HF diagnoses in administrative databases do correspond to true HF cases, about one-quarter of HF cases are not captured. The use of broader search parameters, along with laboratory and prescription medication data, may help identify more cases.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the accuracy for detecting breast cancer in the diagnostic setting between the use of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), defined as DBT alone or combined DBT and digital mammography (DM), and the use of DM alone through a systematic review and meta-analysis.Materials and methodsOvid-MEDLINE, Ovid-Embase, Cochrane Library and five Korean local databases were searched for articles published until March 25, 2020. We selected studies that reported diagnostic accuracy in women who were recalled after screening or symptomatic. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. A bivariate random effects model was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity. We compared the diagnostic accuracy between DBT and DM alone using meta-regression and subgroup analyses by modality of intervention, country, existence of calcifications, breast density, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category threshold, study design, protocol for participant sampling, sample size, reason for diagnostic examination, and number of readers who interpreted the studies.ResultsTwenty studies (n = 44513) that compared DBT and DM alone were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.90 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86-0.93) and 0.90 (95% CI 0.84-0.94), respectively, for DBT, which were higher than 0.76 (95% CI 0.68-0.83) and 0.83 (95% CI 0.73-0.89), respectively, for DM alone (p < 0.001). The area under the summary receiver operating characteristics curve was 0.95 (95% CI 0.93-0.97) for DBT and 0.86 (95% CI 0.82-0.88) for DM alone. The higher sensitivity and specificity of DBT than DM alone were consistently noted in most subgroup and meta-regression analyses.ConclusionUse of DBT was more accurate than DM alone for the diagnosis of breast cancer. Women with clinical symptoms or abnormal screening findings could be more effectively evaluated for breast cancer using DBT, which has a superior diagnostic performance compared to DM alone.

Project description:BackgroundInappropriate medication use (IMU) by elderly people is a public health problem associated with adverse effects on health. There are a number of methods for identifying IMU, some involving clinical judgment and others, consensually generated lists of drugs to be avoided. This review aims to describe studies that used information from insurance company and social security administrative databases to assess IMU among community-dwelling elderly and to present the risk factors most often associated with IMU.MethodsThe paper search was conducted in Medline and Embase, using descriptors combined with free terms in the title or abstract. The limits applied were: publication date from January 1990 to June 2010, species (human) and publication type (excluding editorials, letters and reviews). Excluded were: case studies; studies in hospitals, nursing homes, or hospital emergency departments; studies of specific drugs or groups of drugs; studies exclusively of subgroups of ill, frail elderly or rural populations. Additional studies were identified from reference lists. Data were selected and extracted after independent reading by two of the authors, with disagreements resolved by a third author. The primary outcome assessed was prevalence of IMU, defined as the proportion of elderly who received at least one inappropriate medication.ResultsOf the 628 studies, 19 met the inclusion criteria, 78.9% of them conducted in the USA. All papers included used explicit criteria of inappropriateness, most commonly Beers criteria (73.7%) in their three versions (1991, 1997 and 2002). Other methods used included Zhan, which is derived from on Beers criteria and was applied in 21% of the papers selected. The study found that prevalence of IMU ranged from 11.5% to 62.5%. Only 68.4% of the studies included examined inappropriate use-related factors, the most important being female sex, advanced age and larger number of drugs.ConclusionsThe results show that the prevalence of IMU among community-dwelling elderly is high and depends partly on the method used to evaluate improper use. Besides the diversity of methods, other factors, such as patient sex, age and number of drugs used concurrently, appear to have influenced the estimates of IMU.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:In an increasingly digital age for healthcare around the world, administrative data have become rich and accessible tools for potentially identifying and monitoring population trends in diseases including epilepsy. However, it remains unclear (1) how accurate administrative data are at identifying epilepsy within a population and (2) the optimal algorithms needed for administrative data to correctly identify people with epilepsy within a population. To address this knowledge gap, we will conduct a novel systematic review of all identified studies validating administrative healthcare data in epilepsy identification. We provide here a protocol that will outline the methods and analyses planned for the systematic review. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The systematic review described in this protocol will be conducted to follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. MEDLINE and Embase will be searched for studies validating administrative data in epilepsy published from 1975 to current (01 June 2018). Included studies will validate the International Classification of Disease (ICD), Ninth Revision (ICD-9) onwards (ie, ICD-9 code 345 and ICD-10 codes G40-G41) as well as other non-ICD disease classification systems used, such as Read Codes in the UK. The primary outcome will be providing pooled estimates of accuracy for identifying epilepsy within the administrative databases validated using sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curves. Heterogeneity will be assessed using the I2 statistic and descriptive analyses used where this is present. The secondary outcome will be the optimal administrative data algorithms for correctly identifying epilepsy. These will be identified using multivariable logistic regression models. 95% confidence intervals will be quoted throughout. We will make an assessment of risk of bias, quality of evidence, and completeness of reporting for included studies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethical approval is not required as primary data will not be collected. Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations and in press releases. PROSPERO REGISTRATION:CRD42017081212.

Project description:ObjectiveTo conduct a systematic review of studies reporting on the validity of International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes for identifying stroke in administrative data.MethodsMEDLINE and EMBASE were searched (inception to February 2015) for studies: (a) Using administrative data to identify stroke; or (b) Evaluating the validity of stroke codes in administrative data; and (c) Reporting validation statistics (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), or Kappa scores) for stroke, or data sufficient for their calculation. Additional articles were located by hand search (up to February 2015) of original papers. Studies solely evaluating codes for transient ischaemic attack were excluded. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers; article quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool.ResultsSeventy-seven studies published from 1976-2015 were included. The sensitivity of ICD-9 430-438/ICD-10 I60-I69 for any cerebrovascular disease was ? 82% in most [? 50%] studies, and specificity and NPV were both ? 95%. The PPV of these codes for any cerebrovascular disease was ? 81% in most studies, while the PPV specifically for acute stroke was ? 68%. In at least 50% of studies, PPVs were ? 93% for subarachnoid haemorrhage (ICD-9 430/ICD-10 I60), 89% for intracerebral haemorrhage (ICD-9 431/ICD-10 I61), and 82% for ischaemic stroke (ICD-9 434/ICD-10 I63 or ICD-9 434&436). For in-hospital deaths, sensitivity was 55%. For cerebrovascular disease or acute stroke as a cause-of-death on death certificates, sensitivity was ? 71% in most studies while PPV was ? 87%.ConclusionsWhile most cases of prevalent cerebrovascular disease can be detected using 430-438/I60-I69 collectively, acute stroke must be defined using more specific codes. Most in-hospital deaths and death certificates with stroke as a cause-of-death correspond to true stroke deaths. Linking vital statistics and hospitalization data may improve the ascertainment of fatal stroke.

Project description:BackgroundMajor adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) are increasingly used as composite outcomes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. However, it is unclear how observational studies most commonly define MACE in the literature when using administrative data.MethodsWe identified peer-reviewed articles published in MEDLINE and EMBASE between January 1, 2010 to October 9, 2020. Studies utilizing administrative data to assess the MACE composite outcome using International Classification of Diseases 9th or 10th Revision diagnosis codes were included. Reviews, abstracts, and studies not providing outcome code definitions were excluded. Data extracted included data source, timeframe, MACE components, code definitions, code positions, and outcome validation.ResultsA total of 920 articles were screened, 412 were retained for full-text review, and 58 were included. Only 8.6% (n = 5/58) matched the traditional three-point MACE RCT definition of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), stroke, or cardiovascular death. None matched four-point (+unstable angina) or five-point MACE (+unstable angina and heart failure). The most common MACE components were: AMI and stroke, 15.5% (n = 9/58); AMI, stroke, and all-cause death, 13.8% (n = 8/58); and AMI, stroke and cardiovascular death 8.6% (n = 5/58). Further, 67% (n = 39/58) did not validate outcomes or cite validation studies. Additionally, 70.7% (n = 41/58) did not report code positions of endpoints, 20.7% (n = 12/58) used the primary position, and 8.6% (n = 5/58) used any position.ConclusionsComponents of MACE endpoints and diagnostic codes used varied widely across observational studies. Variability in the MACE definitions used and information reported across observational studies prohibit the comparison, replication, and aggregation of findings. Studies should transparently report the administrative codes used and code positions, as well as utilize validated outcome definitions when possible.

Dataset Information

Accuracy of administrative databases in detecting primary breast cancer diagnoses: a systematic review.

Objective

Design

Data sources

Eligibility criteria

Data extraction

Data analysis

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration number

Publications

Accuracy of administrative databases in detecting primary breast cancer diagnoses: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets