BACKGROUND: In nonexperimental comparative effectiveness research using health care databases, outcome measurements must be validated to evaluate and potentially adjust for misclassification bias. We aimed to validate claims-based myocardial infarction (MI) algorithms in a Medicaid population using an HIV clinical cohort as the gold standard. METHODS: Medicaid administrative data were obtained for the years 2002-2008 and linked to the UNC CFAR HIV Clinical Cohort based on social security number, first name, and last name and MI were adjudicated. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were calculated. RESULTS: There were 1063 individuals included in the study. Over a median observed time of 2.5 years, 17 had an MI. Specificity ranged from 0.979 to 0.993 with the highest specificity obtained using the ICD-9 code 410.xx in the primary or secondary position and a length of stay >3 days. Sensitivity of MI ascertainment varied from 0.588 to 0.824 depending on algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: Specificities of varying claims-based MI ascertainment criteria are high but small changes impact positive predictive value in a cohort with low incidence. Sensitivities vary based on ascertainment criteria. Type of algorithm used should be prioritized based on study question and maximization of specific validation parameters that will minimize bias while also considering precision.
BACKGROUND: In nonexperimental comparative effectiveness research using health care databases, outcome measurements must be validated to evaluate and potentially adjust for misclassification bias. We aimed to validate claims-based myocardial infarction (MI) algorithms in a Medicaid population using an HIV clinical cohort as the gold standard. METHODS: Medicaid administrative data were obtained for the years 2002-2008 and linked to the UNC CFAR HIV Clinical Cohort based on social security number, first name, and last name and MI were adjudicated. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were calculated. RESULTS: There were 1063 individuals included in the study. Over a median observed time of 2.5 years, 17 had an MI. Specificity ranged from 0.979 to 0.993 with the highest specificity obtained using the ICD-9 code 410.xx in the primary or secondary position and a length of stay >3 days. Sensitivity of MI ascertainment varied from 0.588 to 0.824 depending on algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: Specificities of varying claims-based MI ascertainment criteria are high but small changes impact positive predictive value in a cohort with low incidence. Sensitivities vary based on ascertainment criteria. Type of algorithm used should be prioritized based on study question and maximization of specific validation parameters that will minimize bias while also considering precision.
Authors: Carolyn De Coster; Hude Quan; Alan Finlayson; Min Gao; Patricia Halfon; Karin H Humphries; Helen Johansen; Lisa M Lix; Jean-Christophe Luthi; Jin Ma; Patrick S Romano; Leslie Roos; Vijaya Sundararajan; Jack V Tu; Greg Webster; William A Ghali Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2006-06-15 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Rainer Weber; Caroline A Sabin; Nina Friis-Møller; Peter Reiss; Wafaa M El-Sadr; Ole Kirk; Francois Dabis; Matthew G Law; Christian Pradier; Stephane De Wit; Börje Akerlund; Gonzalo Calvo; Antonella d'Arminio Monforte; Martin Rickenbach; Bruno Ledergerber; Andrew N Phillips; Jens D Lundgren Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2006 Aug 14-28
Authors: Wayne D Rosamond; Lloyd E Chambless; Paul D Sorlie; Erin M Bell; Shimon Weitzman; J Clinton Smith; Aaron R Folsom Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2004-12-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: A d'Arminio; C A Sabin; A N Phillips; P Reiss; R Weber; O Kirk; W El-Sadr; S De Wit; S Mateu; K Petoumenos; F Dabis; C Pradier; L Morfeldt; J D Lundgren; N Friis-Møller Journal: AIDS Date: 2004-09-03 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Diane E Bild; David A Bluemke; Gregory L Burke; Robert Detrano; Ana V Diez Roux; Aaron R Folsom; Philip Greenland; David R Jacob; Richard Kronmal; Kiang Liu; Jennifer Clark Nelson; Daniel O'Leary; Mohammed F Saad; Steven Shea; Moyses Szklo; Russell P Tracy Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2002-11-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Yuka Kiyota; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Robert J Glynn; Carolyn C Cannuscio; Jerry Avorn; Daniel H Solomon Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Montika Bush; Til Stürmer; Sally C Stearns; Ross J Simpson; M Alan Brookhart; Wayne Rosamond; Anna M Kucharska-Newton Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2018-02-06 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Michelle Floris-Moore; Andrew Edmonds; Sonia Napravnik; Adaora A Adimora Journal: AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses Date: 2019-09-10 Impact factor: 2.205
Authors: Heidi M Crane; Pathmaja Paramsothy; Daniel R Drozd; Robin M Nance; J A Chris Delaney; Susan R Heckbert; Matthew J Budoff; Greer A Burkholder; James H Willig; Michael J Mugavero; William C Mathews; Paul K Crane; Richard D Moore; Joseph J Eron; Sonia Napravnik; Peter W Hunt; Elvin Geng; Priscilla Hsue; Carla Rodriguez; Inga Peter; Greg S Barnes; Justin McReynolds; William B Lober; Kristina Crothers; Matthew J Feinstein; Carl Grunfeld; Michael S Saag; Mari M Kitahata Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: B Diane Reams; Paul J Dluzniewski; Thy P Do; Susan V Yue; Brian D Bradbury; Abhijit V Kshirsagar; M Alan Brookhart Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2015-10-29 Impact factor: 2.388
Authors: Kael Wherry; Kurt Stromberg; Jennifer A Hinnenthal; Lisa A Wallenfelsz; Mikhael F El-Chami; Lindsay Bockstedt Journal: Pragmat Obs Res Date: 2020-02-28