Administrative database research has unique characteristics that can risk biased results

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 65, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 126-131

  Van Walraven, Carl ^a,b   Austin, Peter ^c  

^a OTTAWA HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Administrative database research; Bias; Clinical significance; Diagnostic codes; Multilevel analysis; Time dependent bias

Indexed keywords

ADMINISTRATIVE DATABASE RESEARCH; ARTICLE; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; CODING; DATA ANALYSIS; DATA BASE; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; HEALTH CARE PROVISION; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; MEASUREMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; STATISTICS;

EID: 84855344458     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: 18785921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.08.002     Document Type: Review

References (23)

1. van Walraven C, Hebert PC. A reader's guide to the evaluation of prognostic studies. Postgrad Med J 1996;72:6-11.
2. Schneeweiss S. Understanding secondary databases: a commentary on "Sources of bias for health state characteristics in secondary databases". J Clin Epidemiol 2007;60:648-50. (Pubitemid 46891758)
3. van Walraven C, Bennett C, Forster AJ. Administrative database research infrequently uses validated diagnostic or procedural codes. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:1054-9.
4. Lesko L, Atkinson A Jr. Use of biomarkers and surrogate endpoints in drug development and regulatory decision making: criteria, validation, strategies. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 2001;41:347-66. (Pubitemid 32390116)
5. Lin DY, Fleming TR, De Gruttola V. Estimating the proportion of treatment effect explained by a surrogate marker. Stat Med 1997;16:1515-27. (Pubitemid 27322655)
6. Freedman LS, Graubard BI, Schatzkin A. Statistical validation of intermediate endpoints for chronic diseases. Stat Med 1992;11:167-78.
7. Berlin JA, Santanna J, Schmid CH, Szczech LA, Feldman HI; Anti-Lymphocyte Antibody Induction Therapy Study Group. Individual patient- versus group-level data meta-regressions for the investigation of treatment effect modifiers: ecological bias rears its ugly head. Stat Med 2002;21:371-87. (Pubitemid 34144648)
8. Brenner H, Gefeller O. Variation of sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios and predictive values with disease prevalence. Stat Med 1997;16:981-91. (Pubitemid 27198986)
9. Sackett DL, Haynes RB, Guyatt GH, Tugwell P. The interpretation of diagnostic data. Clinical epidemiology. A basic science for clinical medicine. Boston, MA: Little, Brown; 1991:69-152.
10. Rogan WJ, Gladen B. Estimating prevalence from the results of a screening test. Am J Epidemiol 1978;107:71-6. (Pubitemid 8308186)
11. Rahme E, Joseph L. Estimating the prevalence of a rare disease: adjusted maximum likelihood. The Statistician 1998;47:149-58. (Pubitemid 128469065)
12. Berkvens D, Speybroeck N, Praet N, Adel A, Lesaffre E. Estimating disease prevalence in a Bayesian framework using probabilistic constraints. Epidemiology 2006;17:145-53.
13. Glesby MJ, Hoover DR. Survivor treatment selection bias in observational studies: examples from the AIDS literature. Ann Intern Med 1996;124:999-1005.
14. Suissa S, Garbe E. Primer: administrative health databases in observational studies of drug effects - advantages and disadvantages. [review]. Nat Clin Pract Rheumatol 2007;3:725-32. (Pubitemid 350187018)
15. van Walraven C, Davis D, Forster AJ, Wells GA. Time-dependent bias due to improper analytical methodology is common in prominent medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol 2004;57:672-82.
16. Cox DR. Regression models and life tables. J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol 1972;34:187-220.
17. Fisher LD, Lin DY. Time-dependent covariates in the Cox proportional-hazards regression model. Ann Rev Public Health 1999;20:145-57. (Pubitemid 29242575)
18. Tu JV, Austin PC, Chan BT. Relationship between annual volume of patients treated by admitting physician and mortality after acute myocardial infarction. JAMA 2001;285:3116-22. (Pubitemid 32578208)
19. Snijders PJ, Boskers R. Statistical treatment of clustered data. Multilevel analysis: an introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.; 1999:13-37.
20. Austin PC, Goel V, van Walraven C. An introduction to multilevel regression models. Can J Public Health 2001;92:150-4. (Pubitemid 32440329)
21. Raudenbush SW, Bryk AS. Hierarchical linear models: applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.; 2002.
22. Goldstein H. Multilevel statistical models. 2nd ed. London, UK: Edward Arnold; 1995.
23. Austin PC, Tu JV, Alter DA. Comparing hierarchical modeling with traditional logistic regression analysis among patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction: should we be analyzing cardiovascular outcomes data differently? Am Heart J 2003;145:27-35. (Pubitemid 36034494)