Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38410416›Full record

ArticleClinical epidemiology2024

Diagnostic Validity of Chronic Kidney Disease in Health Claims Data Over Time: Results from a Cohort of Community-Dwelling Older Adults in Germany.

Tim Bothe, Anne-Katrin Fietz, Elke Schaeffner, Antonios Douros, Anna Pöhlmann, Nina Mielke, Cédric Villain, Muhammad Helmi Barghouth, Volker Wenning, Natalie Ebert

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical epidemiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Tim BotheInstitute of Public Health, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4404-2379
Anne-Katrin FietzInstitute of Biometry and Clinical Epidemiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4395-4176
Elke SchaeffnerInstitute of Public Health, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7925-4577
Antonios DourosDepartments of Medicine and of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-6005-4006
Anna PöhlmannInstitute of Biometry and Clinical Epidemiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1494-3240
Nina MielkeInstitute of Public Health, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8951-9823
Cédric VillainInstitute of Public Health, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2050-2767
Muhammad Helmi BarghouthInstitute of Public Health, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5721-9367
Volker WenningAOK Nordost - Die Gesundheitskasse, Potsdam, Germany.
Natalie EbertInstitute of Public Health, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4463-3315
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEZimmer Biomet (Germany) · DEInserm · FRJewish General Hospital · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: The validity of ICD-10 diagnostic codes for chronic kidney disease (CKD) in health claims data has not been sufficiently studied in the general population and over time. Patients and Methods: We used data from the Berlin Initiative Study (BIS), a prospective longitudinal cohort of community-dwelling individuals aged ≥70 years in Berlin, Germany. With estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) as reference, we assessed the diagnostic validity (sensitivity, specificity, positive [PPV], and negative predictive values [NPV]) of different claims-based ICD-10 codes for CKD stages G3-5 (eGFR <60mL/min/1.73m²: ICD-10 N18.x-N19), G3 (eGFR 30-<60mL/min/1.73m²: N18.3), and G4-5 (eGFR <30mL/min/1.73m²: N18.4-5). We analysed trends over five study visits (2009-2019). Results: We included data of 2068 participants at baseline (2009-2011) and 870 at follow-up 4 (2018-2019), of whom 784 (38.9%) and 440 (50.6%) had CKD G3-5, respectively. At baseline, sensitivity for CKD in claims data ranged from 0.25 (95%-confidence interval [CI] 0.22-0.28) to 0.51 (95%-CI 0.48-0.55) for G3-5, depending on the included ICD-10 codes, 0.20 (95%-CI 0.18-0.24) for G3, and 0.36 (95%-CI 0.25-0.49) for G4-5. Over the course of 10 years, sensitivity increased by 0.17 to 0.29 in all groups. Specificity, PPVs, and NPVs remained mostly stable over time and ranged from 0.82-0.99, 0.47-0.89, and 0.66-0.98 across all study visits, respectively. Conclusion: German claims data showed overall agreeable performance in identifying older adults with CKD, while differentiation between stages was limited. Our results suggest increasing sensitivity over time possibly attributable to improved CKD diagnosis and awareness.

Indexed as

CKDdiagnostic validityhealth claims datasensitivityspecificity

Identifiers

PMID38410416
PMCPMC10895982
OpenAlexW4392059515

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.