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.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- "Low-to-moderate arsenic exposure: a global systematic review of cardiovascular disease risks".Environmental health : a global access science source · 2025Pooled it
- Validation of a Risk-Prediction Model in the Presence of Outcome Misclassification.Statistics in medicine · 2026Article
- Augmenting fact and date of death in electronic health records using internet media sources: a validation study from two large healthcare systems.American journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
- Cardiovascular outcomes of semaglutide and tirzepatide for patients with type 2 diabetes in clinical practice.Nature medicine · 2026Article
- Sedation Practices during Continuous Neuromuscular Blockade for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2025Article
- Bottlenecks in advancing and applying multiomic data integration-common data resources as rate-limiting drivers-the high-impact use case of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Review
- Mortality after treatment of malignant pleural effusions with indwelling pleural catheters versus chemical pleurodesis: a population-based study.Respiratory research · 2024Article
- Analgesia and Sedation Use During Noninvasive Ventilation for Acute Respiratory Failure.Critical care medicine · 2024Article
- RoBANS 2: A Revised Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions.Korean journal of family medicine · 2023Article
- Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors vs. sitagliptin in heart failure and type 2 diabetes: an observational cohort study.European heart journal · 2023 · on this mapObservational
- Association of 5α-Reductase Inhibitor Prescription With Bladder Cancer Progression in Males in South Korea.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Data Quality in Electronic Health Record Research: An Approach for Validation and Quantitative Bias Analysis for Imperfectly Ascertained Health Outcomes Via Diagnostic Codes.Harvard data science review · 2022Article
- Emulating Randomized Clinical Trials With Nonrandomized Real-World Evidence Studies: First Results From the RCT DUPLICATE Initiative.Circulation · 2021Article
- Bias Implications of Outcome Misclassification in Observational Studies Evaluating Association Between Treatments and All-Cause or Cardiovascular Mortality Using Administrative Claims.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2020Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.