Using administrative datasets to study outcomes in dialysis patients: A validation study

Medical Care

Volumn 48, Issue 8, 2010, Pages 745-750

  Quinn, Robert R ^a,b   Laupacis, Andreas ^a,d   Austin, Peter C ^a,e   Hux, Janet E ^a,c,e,f   Garg, Amit X ^a,g,h   Hemmelgarn, Brenda R ^a,i   Oliver, Matthew J ^c,e,f  

^a INSTITUTE FOR CLINICAL EVALUATIVE SCIENCES   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^d ST MICHAEL'S HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^e UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^f SUNNYBROOK RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^g LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE   (Canada)

^h UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

Author keywords

health service research; nephrology; research methodology

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BILLING AND CLAIMS; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMORBIDITY; DATA BASE; DEATH; DEMOGRAPHY; HEMODIALYSIS PATIENT; HUMAN; INTERRATER RELIABILITY; KIDNEY FUNCTION; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL RECORD; MULTICENTER STUDY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; OUTPATIENT; PATIENT CARE; PHYSICIAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RENAL REPLACEMENT THERAPY; VALIDATION STUDY;

DATA COLLECTION; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMANS; MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS; OBSERVER VARIATION; ONTARIO; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); RENAL DIALYSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 77954952991     PISSN: 00257079     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181e419fd     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Fenton SS, Schaubel DE, Desmeules M, et al. Hemodialysis versus peritoneal dialysis: a comparison of adjusted mortality rates. Am J Kidney Dis. 1997;30:334-342.
2. Schaubel DE, Morrison HI, Fenton SS. Comparing mortality rates on CAPD/CCPD and hemodialysis. The Canadian experience: fact or fiction? Perit Dial Int. 1998;18:478-484.
3. Collins AJ, Hao W, Xia H, et al. Mortality risks of peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis. Am J Kidney Dis. 1999;34:1065-1074.
4. Vonesh EF, Moran J. Mortality in end-stage renal disease: a reassessment of differences between patients treated with hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis. J Am Soc Nephrol. 1999;10:354-365.
5. Locatelli F, Marcelli D, Conte F, et al. Survival and development of cardiovascular disease by modality of treatment in patients with end-stage renal disease. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2001;12:2411-2417.
6. Winkelmayer WC, Glynn RJ, Mittleman MA, et al. Comparing mortality of elderly patients on hemodialysis versus peritoneal dialysis: a propensity score approach. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2002;13:2353-2362.
7. Collins AJ, Weinhandl E, Snyder JJ, et al. Comparison and survival of hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis in the elderly. Semin Dial. 2002; 15:98-102.
8. Heaf JG, Lokkegaard H, Madsen M. Initial survival advantage of peritoneal dialysis relative to haemodialysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2002;17:112-117.
9. Stack AG, Molony DA, Rahman NS, et al. Impact of dialysis modality on survival of new ESRD patients with congestive heart failure in the United States. Kidney Int. 2003;64:1071-1079.
10. Ganesh SK, Hulbert-Shearon T, Port FK, et al. Mortality differences by dialysis modality among incident ESRD patients with and without coronary artery disease. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2003;14:415-424.
11. Vonesh EF, Snyder JJ, Foley RN, et al. The differential impact of risk factors on mortality in hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis. Kidney Int. 2004;66:2389-2401.
12. Stack AG, Murthy BV, Molony DA. Survival differences between peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis among "large" ESRD patients in the United States. Kidney Int. 2004;65:2398-2408.
13. Liem YS, Wong JB, Hunink MG, et al. Comparison of hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis survival in the Netherlands. Kidney Int. 2007;71:153-158.
14. De Coster C, Li B, Quan H. Comparison and validity of procedures coded with ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CA/CCI. Med Care. 2008;46:627-634.
15. Henderson T, Shepheard J, Sundararajan V. Quality of diagnosis and procedure coding in ICD-10 administrative data. Med Care. 2006;44: 1011-1019.
16. Kern EF, Maney M, Miller DR, et al. Failure of ICD-9-CM codes to identify patients with comorbid chronic kidney disease in diabetes. Health Serv Res. 2006;41:564-580.
17. So L, Evans D, Quan H. ICD-10 coding algorithms for defining comorbidi-ties of acute myocardial infarction. BMC Health Serv Res. 2006;6:161.
18. Waikar SS, Wald R, Chertow GM, et al. Validity of international classification of diseases, ninth revision, clinical modification codes for acute renal failure. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2006;17:1688-1694.
19. Kokotailo RA, Hill MD. Coding of stroke and stroke risk factors using international classification of diseases, revisions 9 and 10. Stroke. 2005;36:1776-1781.
20. Lee DS, Donovan L, Austin PC, et al. Comparison of coding of heart failure and comorbidities in administrative and clinical data for use in outcomes research. Med Care. 2005;43:182-188.
21. Winkelmayer WC, Schneeweiss S, Mogun H, et al. Identification of individuals with CKD from Medicare claims data: a validation study. Am J Kidney Dis. 2005;46:225-232.
22. 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.
23. Quan H, Parsons GA, Ghali WA. Assessing accuracy of diagnosis-type indicators for flagging complications in administrative data. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57:366-372.
24. Quan H, Parsons GA, Ghali WA. Validity of procedure codes in international classification of diseases, 9th revision, clinical modification administrative data. Med Care. 2004;42:801-809.
25. Wilchesky M, Tamblyn RM, Huang A. Validation of diagnostic codes within medical services claims. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57:131-141.
26. Quan H, Parsons GA, Ghali WA. Validity of information on comor-bidity derived from ICD-9-CCM administrative data. Med Care. 2002;40:675-685.
27. Humphries KH, Rankin JM, Carere RG, et al. Co-morbidity data in outcomes research: are clinical data derived from administrative databases a reliable alternative to chart review? J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:343-349.
28. Brameld KJ, Thomas MA, Holman CD, et al. Validation of linked administrative data on end-stage renal failure: application of record linkage to a 'clinical base population'. Aust N Z J Public Health. 1999;23:464-467.
29. Juurlink D, Preyra C, Croxford R, et al. Canadian Institute for Health Information Discharge Abstract Database: a validation study. Toronto, ON, Canada: Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences; 2006.
30. Longenecker JC, Coresh J, Klag MJ, et al. Validation of comorbid conditions on the end-stage renal disease medical evidence report: the CHOICE study. Choices for Healthy Outcomes in Caring for ESRD. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2000;11:520-529.
31. Iron K, Zagorski BM, Sykora K, et al. Living and dying in Ontario: an opportunity for improved health information. ICES investigative report. Toronto, ON, Canada: Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences; 2008.