2021
DOI: 10.1007/s10384-021-00816-w
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Validation study of the claims-based definition for age-related macular degeneration at a single university hospital in Japan

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Full‐text articles of 42 studies were retrieved, and six were excluded because they compared aggregate data, validated self‐report questionnaires using claims data as a reference standard, were review articles, were aimed at refining the cancer registry and not for research purposes, did not report case‐defining methods, or did not report a reference standard 12,19–23 . There were 36 eligible studies, including 29 studies 8,10,11,13,24–48 that validated administrative data using an external reference standard and seven studies 9,49–54 that validated administrative data using other data within the same database.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Full‐text articles of 42 studies were retrieved, and six were excluded because they compared aggregate data, validated self‐report questionnaires using claims data as a reference standard, were review articles, were aimed at refining the cancer registry and not for research purposes, did not report case‐defining methods, or did not report a reference standard 12,19–23 . There were 36 eligible studies, including 29 studies 8,10,11,13,24–48 that validated administrative data using an external reference standard and seven studies 9,49–54 that validated administrative data using other data within the same database.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Following previous validation studies, we defined diagnosis based on chart reviews as the reference standard 11,13,19,20. Because the quality of the descriptions in the charts affects the quality of the chart reviews, we took 2 measures.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Following previous validation studies, we defined diagnosis based on chart reviews as the reference standard. 11,13,19,20 Because the quality of the descriptions in the charts affects the quality of the chart reviews, we took 2 measures. First, the reviewers made judgments based not only on the recorded diagnoses in the charts but also on the results of objective ophthalmic examinations.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A validation study exhibited high accuracy (sensitivity, 94.9%; specificity, 92.6%; accuracy, 93.7%) of the recorded diagnosis of age‐related macular degeneration in a Japanese administrative claims database (Tamiya et al. 2021). Since both age‐related macular degeneration and RVO are diagnosed by fundus examination and fluorescent fundus angiography, the claims‐based definition of RVO could be expected to be as high as that of age‐related macular degeneration.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%