Cargando…

Appropriate definition of diabetes using an administrative database: A cross‐sectional cohort validation study

AIMS/INTRODUCTION: The purpose of the present study was to quantify errors in the diagnosis of diabetes for use in the national database, using a sufficient population size. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A claims database constructed by the JMDC (Tokyo, Japan), using standardized disease classifications an...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nishioka, Yuichi, Takeshita, Saki, Kubo, Shinichiro, Myojin, Tomoya, Noda, Tatsuya, Okada, Sadanori, Ishii, Hitoshi, Imamura, Tomoaki, Takahashi, Yutaka
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8847127/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34327864
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jdi.13641
_version_ 1784651983323398144
author Nishioka, Yuichi
Takeshita, Saki
Kubo, Shinichiro
Myojin, Tomoya
Noda, Tatsuya
Okada, Sadanori
Ishii, Hitoshi
Imamura, Tomoaki
Takahashi, Yutaka
author_facet Nishioka, Yuichi
Takeshita, Saki
Kubo, Shinichiro
Myojin, Tomoya
Noda, Tatsuya
Okada, Sadanori
Ishii, Hitoshi
Imamura, Tomoaki
Takahashi, Yutaka
author_sort Nishioka, Yuichi
collection PubMed
description AIMS/INTRODUCTION: The purpose of the present study was to quantify errors in the diagnosis of diabetes for use in the national database, using a sufficient population size. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A claims database constructed by the JMDC (Tokyo, Japan), using standardized disease classifications and anonymous record linkage, was used in this validation study. We included patients with health insurance claims data from April 2005 to March 2019 in the JMDC claims database. We excluded patients without a record of specific health checkups in Japan. Sample size calculation was based on a 5% prevalence of diabetes and 0.4% absolute accuracy (i.e., 1,250,000 individuals), to calculate the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value. RESULTS: In total, 2,999,152 patients were included in this study, of which 165,515 were classified as having diabetes based on specific health checkups (validation cohort prevalence of 5.5%). The newly devised algorithm had three elements – the diagnosis‐related codes for diabetes without suspected flag, the medication codes for diabetes and then these two codes on the same record – and yielded a sensitivity of 74.6%, positive predictive value of 88.4% and Kappa Index of 0.80 (the highest values). CONCLUSIONS: In future claims database studies, our validated algorithms will be useful as diagnostic criteria for diabetes.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8847127
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88471272022-02-25 Appropriate definition of diabetes using an administrative database: A cross‐sectional cohort validation study Nishioka, Yuichi Takeshita, Saki Kubo, Shinichiro Myojin, Tomoya Noda, Tatsuya Okada, Sadanori Ishii, Hitoshi Imamura, Tomoaki Takahashi, Yutaka J Diabetes Investig Original Articles AIMS/INTRODUCTION: The purpose of the present study was to quantify errors in the diagnosis of diabetes for use in the national database, using a sufficient population size. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A claims database constructed by the JMDC (Tokyo, Japan), using standardized disease classifications and anonymous record linkage, was used in this validation study. We included patients with health insurance claims data from April 2005 to March 2019 in the JMDC claims database. We excluded patients without a record of specific health checkups in Japan. Sample size calculation was based on a 5% prevalence of diabetes and 0.4% absolute accuracy (i.e., 1,250,000 individuals), to calculate the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value. RESULTS: In total, 2,999,152 patients were included in this study, of which 165,515 were classified as having diabetes based on specific health checkups (validation cohort prevalence of 5.5%). The newly devised algorithm had three elements – the diagnosis‐related codes for diabetes without suspected flag, the medication codes for diabetes and then these two codes on the same record – and yielded a sensitivity of 74.6%, positive predictive value of 88.4% and Kappa Index of 0.80 (the highest values). CONCLUSIONS: In future claims database studies, our validated algorithms will be useful as diagnostic criteria for diabetes. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-08-24 2022-02 /pmc/articles/PMC8847127/ /pubmed/34327864 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jdi.13641 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Journal of Diabetes Investigation published by Asian Association for the Study of Diabetes (AASD) and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Nishioka, Yuichi
Takeshita, Saki
Kubo, Shinichiro
Myojin, Tomoya
Noda, Tatsuya
Okada, Sadanori
Ishii, Hitoshi
Imamura, Tomoaki
Takahashi, Yutaka
Appropriate definition of diabetes using an administrative database: A cross‐sectional cohort validation study
title Appropriate definition of diabetes using an administrative database: A cross‐sectional cohort validation study
title_full Appropriate definition of diabetes using an administrative database: A cross‐sectional cohort validation study
title_fullStr Appropriate definition of diabetes using an administrative database: A cross‐sectional cohort validation study
title_full_unstemmed Appropriate definition of diabetes using an administrative database: A cross‐sectional cohort validation study
title_short Appropriate definition of diabetes using an administrative database: A cross‐sectional cohort validation study
title_sort appropriate definition of diabetes using an administrative database: a cross‐sectional cohort validation study
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8847127/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34327864
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jdi.13641
work_keys_str_mv AT nishiokayuichi appropriatedefinitionofdiabetesusinganadministrativedatabaseacrosssectionalcohortvalidationstudy
AT takeshitasaki appropriatedefinitionofdiabetesusinganadministrativedatabaseacrosssectionalcohortvalidationstudy
AT kuboshinichiro appropriatedefinitionofdiabetesusinganadministrativedatabaseacrosssectionalcohortvalidationstudy
AT myojintomoya appropriatedefinitionofdiabetesusinganadministrativedatabaseacrosssectionalcohortvalidationstudy
AT nodatatsuya appropriatedefinitionofdiabetesusinganadministrativedatabaseacrosssectionalcohortvalidationstudy
AT okadasadanori appropriatedefinitionofdiabetesusinganadministrativedatabaseacrosssectionalcohortvalidationstudy
AT ishiihitoshi appropriatedefinitionofdiabetesusinganadministrativedatabaseacrosssectionalcohortvalidationstudy
AT imamuratomoaki appropriatedefinitionofdiabetesusinganadministrativedatabaseacrosssectionalcohortvalidationstudy
AT takahashiyutaka appropriatedefinitionofdiabetesusinganadministrativedatabaseacrosssectionalcohortvalidationstudy