ArticleEuropean journal of public health2025
Healthcare claims and health interview survey data for chronic disease surveillance: agreement and comparative validity of prevalence indicators for 20 chronic conditions in a general population sample in France.
Article in European journal of public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Healthcare claims data are increasingly used to derive chronic condition (CC) surveillance indicators, although comparative evidence with self-reported data remains scarce. We explored the agreement and comparative validity (concurrent and predictive) of 20 CC prevalence indicators independently constructed using the French National Health Data System (SNDS) and Health, Health Care, and Insurance Survey (ESPS 2010-2014). Individual data from 5039 ESPS participants aged ≥25 years, representative of the 2010 French general population, were linked to the SNDS. Follow-up data included a 2014 health self-assessment and 5-year mortality. We considered 20 CCs with corresponding SNDS case-identifying algorithms and self-reported information from ESPS, including most cardiovascular diseases and frequent cancers. Kappa statistics assessed agreement between CC indicators across databases. Polytomous and dichotomous logistic regression assessed determinants of disagreement between sources and associations of indicators with health outcomes (concurrent and predictive validity). Prevalence values were much higher with survey data except for hypertension, diabetes, thyroid disorders, epilepsy, and most cancers for which they were closer (±20%) to claims data. Agreement between CC indicators varied from the strongest (hypertension, diabetes, thyroid disorders, most cancers) to the weakest (cardiac rhythm disorders, peptic ulcer, chronic liver diseases). Sex, age, and multimorbidity strongly influenced agreement. Most claims database indicators were more strongly associated with health outcomes. Health interview surveys and healthcare claims-derived indicators are not interchangeable given their specific determinants. Since no general rule applies to all CCs, the advantages and disadvantages of each data source should be closely considered in case-to-case analysis.
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.