Agreement between administrative claims and the medical record in identifying patients with a diagnosis of hypertension

Medical Care

Volumn 44, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 486-490

  Bullano, Michael F ^a   Kamat, Siddhesh ^a   Willey, Vincent J ^a   Barlas, Suna ^b   Watson, Douglas J ^b   Brenneman, Susan K ^b  

^a HEALTHCORE INC   (United States)

^b MERCK RESEARCH LABORATORIES   (United States)

Author keywords

Administrative; Agreement; Claims; HTN; Validation

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EVALUATION; FACTUAL DATABASE; FEMALE; HEALTH INSURANCE; HUMAN; HYPERTENSION; INSURANCE; MALE; MEDICAL RECORD; MIDDLE AGED; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARD; STATISTICS; UNITED STATES;

DATABASES, FACTUAL; FEMALE; GUIDELINES; HUMANS; HYPERTENSION; INSURANCE CLAIM REVIEW; INSURANCE, PHARMACEUTICAL SERVICES; MALE; MEDICAL RECORDS; MID-ATLANTIC REGION; MIDDLE AGED; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 33646771827     PISSN: 00257079     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000207482.02503.55     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Quam L, Ellis LB, Venus P, et al. Using claims data for epidemiologic research. The concordance of claims-based criteria with the medical record and patient survey for identifying a hypertensive population. Med Care. 1993;31:498-507.
2. Hebert PL, Geiss LS, Tierney EF, et al. Identifying persons with diabetes using Medicare claims data. Am J Med Qual. 1999;14:270-277.
3. Robinson JR, Young TK, Roos LL, et al. Estimating the burden of disease. Comparing administrative data and self-reports. Med Care. 1997;35:932-947.
4. Newton KM, Wagner EH, Ramsey SD, et al. The use of automated data to identify complications and comorbidities of diabetes: a validation study. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52:199-207.
5. Powell H, Lim LL, Heller RF. Accuracy of administrative data to assess comorbidity in patients with heart disease: an Australian perspective. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54:687-693.
6. Roos LL. Using computers to identify complications after surgery. Am J Public Health. 1985;75:1288-1295.
7. Kosecoff J, Fink A, Brook RH, et al. The appropriateness of using a medical procedure. Is information in the medical record valid? Med Care. 1987;25:196-201.
8. Roos NP. Using administrative data from Manitoba, Canada to study treatment outcomes: developing control groups and adjusting for case severity. Soc Sci Med. 1989;28:109-113.
9. Christensen DB, Williams B, Goldberg HI, et al. Comparison of prescription and medical records in reflecting patient antihypertensive drug therapy. Ann Pharmacother. 1994;28:99-104.
10. Glynn RJ, Monane M, Gurwitz JH, et al. Agreement between drug treatment data and a discharge diagnosis of diabetes mellitus in the elderly. Am J Epidemiol. 1999;149:541-549.
11. Muhajarine N, Mustard C, Roos LL, et al. Comparison of survey and physician claims data for detecting hypertension. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50:711-718.
12. Jollis JG, Ancukiewicz M, DeLong ER, et al. Discordance of databases designed for claims payment versus clinical information systems. Implications for outcomes research. Ann Intern Med. 1993;119:844-850.
13. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Health And Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) Update: Health, United States, 2004, with chartbook on trends in the health of Americans. 2004;238.
14. Preen DB, Holman CD, Lawrence DM, et al. Hospital chart review provided more accurate comorbidity information than data from a general practitioner survey or an administrative database. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57:1295-1304.
15. Peabody JW, Luck J, Jain S, et al. Assessing the accuracy of administrative data in health information systems. Med Care. 2004;42:1066-1072.