Validation of claims-based algorithms for identification of high-grade cervical dysplasia and cervical cancer

ABSTRACT Background High‐grade cervical dysplasia or cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse has been widely used as a surrogate endpoint in cervical cancer screening or prevention trials. Methods To identify high‐grade cervical dysplasia and cervical cancer, we developed claims‐based al...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety Jg. 22; H. 11; S. 1239 - 1244
Hauptverfasser: Kim, Seoyoung C., Gillet, Victoria G., Feldman, Sarah, Lii, Huichuan, Toh, Sengwee, Brown, Jeffrey S., Katz, Jeffrey N., Solomon, Daniel H., Schneeweiss, Sebastian
Format: Journal Article
Sprache:Englisch
Veröffentlicht: Chichester Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.11.2013
Wiley
Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
Schlagworte:
ISSN:1053-8569, 1099-1557, 1099-1557
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:ABSTRACT Background High‐grade cervical dysplasia or cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse has been widely used as a surrogate endpoint in cervical cancer screening or prevention trials. Methods To identify high‐grade cervical dysplasia and cervical cancer, we developed claims‐based algorithms that incorporated a combination of diagnosis and procedure codes using the billing data in an electronic medical records database and assessed the validity of the algorithms in an independent administrative claims database. We calculated the positive predictive value (PPV) with the 95% confidence interval (CI) of each algorithm, using new cytologic or pathologic diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or 3, carcinoma in situ, or cervical cancer as the gold standard. Results Having ≥1 diagnosis code for high‐grade cervical dysplasia or cervical cancer had a PPV of 57.1% (95%CI, 54.7–59.5%). By requiring ≥2 diagnoses for high‐grade cervical dysplasia or cervical cancer, separated by 7–30 days, the PPV increased to 60.2% (95%CI, 53.9–66.1%). At least two diagnoses and a procedure code within a month from the first diagnosis date yielded a PPV of 80.7% (95%CI, 73.6–86.2%). The algorithms had greater PPVs in identifying prevalent high‐grade cervical dysplasia or cervical cancer. Overall, the PPVs of these algorithms were similar or slightly lower in the external claims data than in the sample used to derive the algorithms. Conclusions Use of ≥2 diagnosis codes in combination with a procedure code appears to be a valid tool for studying high‐grade cervical dysplasia and cervical cancer in both electronic medical record and administrative claims databases. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Bibliographie:ArticleID:PDS3520
istex:5F8EEB23344B223C6CBF1CA39803431E2CA47E9E
ark:/67375/WNG-MZWQ3V8Q-R
ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 14
ObjectType-Article-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ObjectType-Undefined-3
Reprint Request to: Seoyoung C Kim, MD, MSCE, Address: 1620 Tremont Street, Suite 3030, Boston MA 02120, USA
ISSN:1053-8569
1099-1557
1099-1557
DOI:10.1002/pds.3520