Limitations of claims and registry data in surgical oncology research

Annals of Surgical Oncology

Volumn 15, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 415-423

  Nathan, Hari ^a   Pawlik, Timothy M ^a  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Administrative; Claims; Data; Outcomes; Registry; Surgery

Indexed keywords

BILLING AND CLAIMS; CANCER REGISTRY; CANCER RESEARCH; CANCER SURGERY; COMORBIDITY; CONFOUNDING VARIABLE; DATA ANALYSIS; INTERNAL VALIDITY; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; REVIEW; SAMPLE SIZE; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; ARTICLE; EPIDEMIOLOGY; HUMAN; INSURANCE; MEDICARE; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; ONCOLOGY; REGISTER; RISK ASSESSMENT; STANDARD; STATISTICAL MODEL; SURGERY; UNITED STATES;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; CAUSALITY; CONFOUNDING FACTORS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); HUMANS; INSURANCE CLAIM REPORTING; MEDICAL ONCOLOGY; MEDICARE; MODELS, STATISTICAL; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); REGISTRIES; RISK ADJUSTMENT; SEER PROGRAM; SPECIALTIES, SURGICAL; UNITED STATES;

EID: 40649128580     PISSN: 10689265     EISSN: 15344681     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-007-9658-3     Document Type: Review

References (39)

1. Virnig BA, McBean M. Administrative data for public health surveillance and planning. Ann Rev Public Health 2001; 22:213-30
2. Cooper GS, Virnig B, Klabunde CN, Schussler N, Freeman J, Warren JL. Use of SEER-Medicare data for measuring cancer surgery. Med Care 2002; 40(8 Suppl IV-):43-8
3. Romano PS, Chan BK, Schembri ME, Rainwater JA. Can administrative data be used to compare postoperative complication rates across hospitals? Med Care 2002; 40(10):856-67
4. Hawker GA, Coyte PC, Wright JG, Paul JE, Bombardier C. Accuracy of administrative data for assessing outcomes after knee replacement surgery. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50(3):265-73
5. Characteristics of the SEER Population Compared with the Total United States Population [accessed July 15, 2007, at http://www.seer.cancer.gov/ registries/ characteristics.html]
6. Warren JL, Klabunde CN, Schrag D, Bach PB, Riley GF. Overview of the SEER-Medicare data: content, research applications, and generalizability to the United States elderly population. Med Care 2002; 40(8 Suppl IV-):3-18
7. SEER-Medicare: About the Data Files [accessed July 15, 2007, at http://www.healthservices.cancer.gov/seermedicare/aboutdata/ index.html]
8. Delgado-Rodriguez M, Llorca J. Bias. J Epidemiol Commun Health 2004; 58(8):635-41
9. Rubin DB. Estimating causal effects from large data sets using propensity scores. Ann Intern Med 1997; 127(8 Pt 2):757-63
10. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983; 70(1):41-55
11. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. J Am Stat Assoc 1984; 79(387):516-24
12. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. Constructing a control-group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. Am Stat 1985; 39(1):33-8
13. Braitman LE, Rosenbaum PR. Rare outcomes, common treatments: analytic strategies using propensity scores. Ann Intern Med 2002; 137(8):693-5
14. Stukel TA, Fisher ES, Wennberg DE, Alter DA, Gottlieb DJ, Vermeulen MJ. Analysis of observational studies in the presence of treatment selection bias: effects of invasive cardiac management on AMI survival using propensity score and instrumental variable methods. JAMA 2007; 297(3):278-85
15. Austin PC, Mamdani MM, Stukel TA, Anderson GM, Tu JV. The use of the propensity score for estimating treatment effects: administrative versus clinical data. Stat Med 2005; 24(10):1563-78
16. Harris KM, Remler DK. Who is the marginal patient? Understanding instrumental variables estimates of treatment effects. Health Serv Res 1998; 33(5 Pt 1):1337-60
17. Byar DP. Why data bases should not replace randomized clinical trials. Biometrics 1980; 36(2):337-42
18. Green SB, Byar DP. Using observational data from registries to compare treatments: the fallacy of omnimetrics. Stat Med 1984; 3(4):361-73
19. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40(5):373-83
20. Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Ciol MA. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol 1992; 45(6):613-9
21. Romano PS, Roos LL, Jollis JG. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative data: differing perspectives. J Clin Epidemiol 1993; 46(10):1075-9; discussion 81-90
22. Cleves MA, Sanchez N, Draheim M. Evaluation of two competing methods for calculating Charlson's comorbidity index when analyzing short-term mortality using administrative data. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50(8):903-8
23. Quan H, Parsons GA, Ghali WA. Validity of information on comorbidity derived from ICD-9-CCM administrative data. Med Care 2002; 40(8):675-85
24. Malenka DJ, McLerran D, Roos N, Fisher ES, Wennberg JE. Using administrative data to describe casemix: a comparison with the medical record. J Clin Epidemiol 1994; 47(9):1027-32
25. Elixhauser A, Steiner C, Harris DR, Coffey RM. Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data. Med Care 1998; 36(1):8-27
26. Stukenborg GJ, Wagner DP, Connors AF Jr. Comparison of the performance of two comorbidity measures, with and without information from prior hospitalizations. Med Care 2001; 39(7):727-39
27. Southern DA, Quan H, Ghali WA. Comparison of the Elixhauser and Charlson/Deyo methods of comorbidity measurement in administrative data. Med Care 2004; 42(4):355-60
28. Baldwin LM, Klabunde CN, Green P, Barlow W, Wright G. In search of the perfect comorbidity measure for use with administrative claims data: does it exist? Med Care 2006; 44(8):745-53
29. Livingston EH. Development of bariatric surgery-specific risk assessment tool. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2007; 3(1):14-20; discussion
30. Klabunde CN, Potosky AL, Legler JM, Warren JL. Development of a comorbidity index using physician claims data. J Clin Epidemiol 2000; 53(12):1258-67
31. Klabunde CN, Legler JM, Warren JL, Baldwin LM, Schrag D. A Refined comorbidity measurement algorithm for claims-based studies of breast, prostate, colorectal, and lung cancer patients. Ann Epidemiol 2007; 17(8):584-90
32. Ghali WA, Hall RE, Rosen AK, Ash AS, Moskowitz MA. Searching for an improved clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative data. J Clin Epidemiol 1996; 49(3):273-8
33. Martins M, Blais R. Evaluation of comorbidity indices for inpatient mortality prediction models. J Clin Epidemiol 2006; 59(7):665-9
34. Pine M, Jordan HS, Elixhauser A, et al. Enhancement of claims data to improve risk adjustment of hospital mortality. JAMA 2007; 297(1):71-6
35. Klabunde CN, Warren JL, Legler JM. Assessing comorbidity using claims data: an overview. Med Care 2002; 40(8 Suppl IV):26-35
36. Little RJA, Rubin DB. Statistical analysis with missing data. 2nd ed. Hoboken NJ: Wiley; 2002
37. Rubin DB. Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. Hoboken NJ: Wiley-Interscience; 2004
38. Schafer JL. Multiple imputation: a primer. Stat Methods Med Res 1999; 8(1):3-15
39. Hill AB. The environment and disease: association or causation? Proc R Soc Med 1965; 58:295-300