DOI 10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.03.075
A systematic review of validated methods for identifying patients with rheumatoid arthritis using administrative or claims data.
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To review the evidence supporting the validity of billing, procedural, or diagnosis code, or pharmacy claim-based algorithms used to identify patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in administrative and claim databases.
METHODS
We searched the MEDLINE database from 1991 to September 2012 using controlled vocabulary and key terms related to RA and reference lists of included studies were searched. Two investigators independently assessed the full text of studies against pre-determined inclusion criteria and extracted the data. Data collected included participant and algorithm characteristics.
RESULTS
Nine studies reported validation of computer algorithms based on International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes with or without free-text, medication use, laboratory data and the need for a diagnosis by a rheumatologist. These studies yielded positive predictive values (PPV) ranging from 34 to 97% to identify patients with RA. Higher PPVs were obtained with the use of at least two ICD and/or procedure codes (ICD-9 code 714 and others), the requirement of a prescription of a medication used to treat RA, or requirement of participation of a rheumatologist in patient care. For example, the PPV increased from 66 to 97% when the use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and the presence of a positive rheumatoid factor were required.
CONCLUSIONS
There have been substantial efforts to propose and validate algorithms to identify patients with RA in automated databases. Algorithms that include more than one code and incorporate medications or laboratory data and/or required a diagnosis by a rheumatologist may increase the PPV.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.