Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32844711›Full record

Observational studyJournal of the American Heart Association2020

Bias Implications of Outcome Misclassification in Observational Studies Evaluating Association Between Treatments and All-Cause or Cardiovascular Mortality Using Administrative Claims.

Rishi J Desai, Raisa Levin, Kueiyu Joshua Lin, Elisabetta Patorno

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Rishi J DesaiDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics Brigham and Women's Hospital & Harvard Medical School Boston MA.
Raisa LevinDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics Brigham and Women's Hospital & Harvard Medical School Boston MA.
Kueiyu Joshua LinDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics Brigham and Women's Hospital & Harvard Medical School Boston MA.
Elisabetta PatornoDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics Brigham and Women's Hospital & Harvard Medical School Boston MA.
Brigham and Women's Hospital · US

Funding

Novel Approaches to Monitor the Safety and Effectiveness of Newly Marketed Diabetes Medications in Older Adults Considering Frailty and MultimorbidityK08AG055670 · NIA · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI PATORNO, ELISABETTA · 2018 to 2021
$661k
NIA NIH HHS K08 AG055670
6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

Administrative Claims, HealthcareAgedAged, 80 and overBiasCardiovascular DiseasesCause of DeathDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2FemaleHeart FailureHospital MortalityHumansMaleMedicarePredictive Value of TestsSensitivity and SpecificityTreatment Outcomebiasmortalityobservational studiesoutcome misclassification

Identifiers

PMID32844711
PMCPMC7660765
OpenAlexW3081137277

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.