Literature DB >> 22437619

Determination of colonoscopy indication from administrative claims data.

Cynthia W Ko1, Jason A Dominitz, Moni Neradilek, Nayak Polissar, Pam Green, William Kreuter, Laura-Mae Baldwin.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy outcomes, such as polyp detection or complication rates, may differ by procedure indication.
OBJECTIVES: To develop methods to classify colonoscopy indications from administrative data, facilitating study of colonoscopy quality and outcomes. RESEARCH
DESIGN: We linked 14,844 colonoscopy reports from the Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative, a national repository of endoscopic reports, to the corresponding Medicare Carrier and Outpatient File claims. Colonoscopy indication was determined from the procedure reports. We developed algorithms using classification and regression trees and linear discriminant analysis (LDA) to classify colonoscopy indication. Predictor variables included ICD-9CM and CPT/HCPCS codes present on the colonoscopy claim or in the 12 months prior, patient demographics, and site of colonoscopy service. Algorithms were developed on a training set of 7515 procedures, then validated using a test set of 7329 procedures.
RESULTS: Sensitivity was lowest for identifying average-risk screening colonoscopies, varying between 55% and 86% for the different algorithms, but specificity for this indication was consistently over 95%. Sensitivity for diagnostic colonoscopy varied between 77% and 89%, with specificity between 55% and 87%. Algorithms with classification and regression trees with 7 variables or LDA with 10 variables had similar overall accuracy, and generally lower accuracy than the algorithm using LDA with 30 variables.
CONCLUSIONS: Algorithms using Medicare claims data have moderate sensitivity and specificity for colonoscopy indication, and will be useful for studying colonoscopy quality in this population. Further validation may be needed before use in alternative populations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 22437619      PMCID: PMC3387505          DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31824ebdf5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Care        ISSN: 0025-7079            Impact factor:   2.983


  12 in total

1.  Ascertainment of colonoscopy indication using administrative data.

Authors:  Deborah A Fisher; Janet M Grubber; John M Castor; Cynthia J Coffman
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 3.199

2.  How many endoscopies are performed for colorectal cancer screening? Results from CDC's survey of endoscopic capacity.

Authors:  Laura C Seeff; Thomas B Richards; Jean A Shapiro; Marion R Nadel; Diane L Manninen; Leslie S Given; Fred B Dong; Linda D Winges; Matthew T McKenna
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 22.682

3.  An automated data algorithm to distinguish screening and diagnostic colorectal cancer endoscopy exams.

Authors:  Reina Haque; Vicki Chiu; Kapil R Mehta; Ann M Geiger
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2005

4.  The effectiveness of colonoscopy in reducing mortality from colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Noel S Weiss; V Paul Doria-Rose
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2009-06-02       Impact factor: 25.391

5.  Record linkage strategies. Part I: Estimating information and evaluating approaches.

Authors:  L L Roos; A Wajda
Journal:  Methods Inf Med       Date:  1991-04       Impact factor: 2.176

6.  Utilization of colonoscopy in the United States: results from a national consortium.

Authors:  David A Lieberman; Jennifer Holub; Glenn Eisen; Dale Kraemer; Cynthia D Morris
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 9.427

7.  The use of screening colonoscopy for patients cared for by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Authors:  Hashem B El-Serag; Laura Petersen; Howard Hampel; Peter Richardson; Gregory Cooper
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2006-11-13

8.  Association of colonoscopy and death from colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Nancy N Baxter; Meredith A Goldwasser; Lawrence F Paszat; Refik Saskin; David R Urbach; Linda Rabeneck
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2008-12-15       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy and endoscopy: combined therapy for problematic bile duct stones.

Authors:  C Harz; T O Henkel; K U Köhrmann; F Pimentel; P Alken; B C Manegold
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Patterns of endoscopy in the United States: analysis of data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the National Endoscopic Database.

Authors:  Amnon Sonnenberg; Stacey L Amorosi; Michael J Lacey; David A Lieberman
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2008-01-07       Impact factor: 9.427

View more
  20 in total

1.  Changes in screening colonoscopy following Medicare reimbursement and cost-sharing changes.

Authors:  Lina D Song; Joseph P Newhouse; Xabier Garcia-De-Albeniz; John Hsu
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2019-04-02       Impact factor: 3.402

2.  Prevalence of colonoscopy before age 50.

Authors:  Carolyn M Rutter; Robert T Greenlee; Eric Johnson; Azadeh Stark; Sheila Weinmann; Aruna Kamineni; Kenneth Adams; Chyke A Doubeni
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2015-01-04       Impact factor: 4.018

3.  Screening flexible sigmoidoscopy versus colonoscopy for reduction of colorectal cancer mortality.

Authors:  Cynthia W Ko; V Paul Doria-Rose; Michael J Barrett; Aruna Kamineni; Lindsey Enewold; Noel S Weiss
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2019-05-31       Impact factor: 2.571

4.  Regional Variability of Repeat Esophagogastroduodenoscopy Use in the National Veteran Population.

Authors:  Andrew J Gawron; Garrett Cole; Nan Hu; William K Thompson; John Fang; Matthew Samore
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2017-07-31       Impact factor: 3.199

5.  Developing and Testing an Electronic Measure of Screening Colonoscopy Overuse in a Large Integrated Healthcare System.

Authors:  Sameer D Saini; Adam A Powell; Jason A Dominitz; Deborah A Fisher; Joseph Francis; Linda Kinsinger; Kathleen S Pittman; Philip Schoenfeld; Stephanie E Moser; Sandeep Vijan; Eve A Kerr
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Geographic variation in the provider of screening colonoscopy in Canada: a population-based cohort study.

Authors:  Aristithes G Doumouras; Sama Anvari; Margherita Cadeddu; Mehran Anvari; Dennis Hong
Journal:  CMAJ Open       Date:  2018-03-13

7.  Cost Differences After Initial CT Colonography Versus Optical Colonoscopy in the Elderly.

Authors:  Hanna M Zafar; Jianing Yang; Katrina Armstrong; Peter Groeneveld
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2015-04-15       Impact factor: 3.173

8.  Case-Control Studies of the Efficacy of Screening Tests That Seek to Prevent Cancer Incidence: Results of an Approach That Utilizes Administrative Claims Data That Do Not Provide Information Regarding Test Indication.

Authors:  V Paul Doria-Rose; Aruna Kamineni; Michael J Barrett; Cynthia W Ko; Noel S Weiss
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2019-04-01       Impact factor: 4.897

Review 9.  Importance of determining indication for colonoscopy: implications for practice and policy original.

Authors:  Amit G Singal; Samir Gupta; Jeffrey Lee; Ethan A Halm; Carolyn M Rutter; Douglas Corley; John Inadomi
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 11.382

10.  Assessing Colorectal Cancer Screening Adherence of Medicare Fee-for-Service Beneficiaries Age 76 to 95 Years.

Authors:  John Bian; Charles Bennett; Gregory Cooper; Alessandra D'Alfonso; Deborah Fisher; Joseph Lipscomb; Chao-Nan Qian
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2016-05-17       Impact factor: 3.840

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.