Suitability of administrative claims databases for bariatric surgery research - is the glass half-full or half-empty?
Bariatric surgery
Body mass index
Healthcare administrative claims
Predictive value of tests
Sensitivity and specificity
Validation study
Journal
BMC medical research methodology
ISSN: 1471-2288
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Res Methodol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968545
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 09 2020
07 09 2020
Historique:
received:
23
04
2020
accepted:
26
08
2020
entrez:
7
9
2020
pubmed:
8
9
2020
medline:
25
6
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Claims databases are generally considered inadequate for obesity research due to suboptimal capture of body mass index (BMI) measurements. This might not be true for bariatric surgery because of reimbursement requirements and changes in coding systems. We assessed the availability and validity of claims-based weight-related diagnosis codes among bariatric surgery patients. We identified three nested retrospective cohorts of adult bariatric surgery patients who underwent adjusted gastric banding, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, or sleeve gastrectomy between January 1, 2011 and June 30, 2018 using different components of OptumLabs® Data Warehouse, which contains linked de-identified claims and electronic health records (EHRs). We measured the availability of claims-based weight-related diagnosis codes in the 6-month preoperative and 1-year postoperative periods in the main cohort identified in the claims data. We created two claims-based algorithms to classify the presence of severe obesity (a commonly used cohort selection criterion) and categorize BMI (a commonly used baseline confounder or postoperative outcome). We evaluated their performance by estimating sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and weighted kappa in two sub-cohorts using EHR-based BMI measurements as the reference. Among the 29,357 eligible patients identified using claims only, 28,828 (98.2%) had preoperative weight-related diagnosis codes, either granular indicating BMI ranges or nonspecific denoting obesity status. Among the 27,407 patients with granular preoperative codes, 12,346 (45.0%) had granular codes and 9355 (34.1%) had nonspecific codes in the 1-year postoperative period. Among the 3045 patients with both preoperative claims-based diagnosis codes and EHR-based BMI measurements, the severe obesity classification algorithm had a sensitivity 100%, specificity 71%, positive predictive value 100%, and negative predictive value 78%. The BMI categorization algorithm had good validity categorizing the last available preoperative or postoperative BMI measurements (weighted kappa [95% confidence interval]: preoperative 0.78, [0.76, 0.79]; postoperative 0.84, [0.80, 0.87]). Claims-based weight-related diagnosis codes had excellent validity before and after bariatric surgical operation but suboptimal availability after operation. Claims databases can be used for bariatric surgery studies of non-weight-related effectiveness and safety outcomes that are well-captured.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Claims databases are generally considered inadequate for obesity research due to suboptimal capture of body mass index (BMI) measurements. This might not be true for bariatric surgery because of reimbursement requirements and changes in coding systems. We assessed the availability and validity of claims-based weight-related diagnosis codes among bariatric surgery patients.
METHODS
We identified three nested retrospective cohorts of adult bariatric surgery patients who underwent adjusted gastric banding, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, or sleeve gastrectomy between January 1, 2011 and June 30, 2018 using different components of OptumLabs® Data Warehouse, which contains linked de-identified claims and electronic health records (EHRs). We measured the availability of claims-based weight-related diagnosis codes in the 6-month preoperative and 1-year postoperative periods in the main cohort identified in the claims data. We created two claims-based algorithms to classify the presence of severe obesity (a commonly used cohort selection criterion) and categorize BMI (a commonly used baseline confounder or postoperative outcome). We evaluated their performance by estimating sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and weighted kappa in two sub-cohorts using EHR-based BMI measurements as the reference.
RESULTS
Among the 29,357 eligible patients identified using claims only, 28,828 (98.2%) had preoperative weight-related diagnosis codes, either granular indicating BMI ranges or nonspecific denoting obesity status. Among the 27,407 patients with granular preoperative codes, 12,346 (45.0%) had granular codes and 9355 (34.1%) had nonspecific codes in the 1-year postoperative period. Among the 3045 patients with both preoperative claims-based diagnosis codes and EHR-based BMI measurements, the severe obesity classification algorithm had a sensitivity 100%, specificity 71%, positive predictive value 100%, and negative predictive value 78%. The BMI categorization algorithm had good validity categorizing the last available preoperative or postoperative BMI measurements (weighted kappa [95% confidence interval]: preoperative 0.78, [0.76, 0.79]; postoperative 0.84, [0.80, 0.87]).
CONCLUSIONS
Claims-based weight-related diagnosis codes had excellent validity before and after bariatric surgical operation but suboptimal availability after operation. Claims databases can be used for bariatric surgery studies of non-weight-related effectiveness and safety outcomes that are well-captured.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32894060
doi: 10.1186/s12874-020-01106-8
pii: 10.1186/s12874-020-01106-8
pmc: PMC7487952
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
225Subventions
Organisme : AHRQ HHS
ID : R01 HS026214
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIBIB NIH HHS
ID : U01 EB023683
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIBIB NIH HHS
ID : U01EB023683
Pays : United States
Références
Am J Epidemiol. 2010 Jul 1;172(1):107-15
pubmed: 20547574
JAMA Surg. 2018 Nov 1;153(11):e183326
pubmed: 30193303
Med Clin North Am. 2011 Sep;95(5):1009-30
pubmed: 21855705
JAMA. 2018 Oct 16;320(15):1570-1582
pubmed: 30326126
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Jul;64(7):749-59
pubmed: 21208778
Eval Health Prof. 2015 Dec;38(4):508-17
pubmed: 25380698
JAMA. 2018 Apr 24;319(16):1723-1725
pubmed: 29570750
J Clin Epidemiol. 2005 Apr;58(4):323-37
pubmed: 15862718
Medicine (Baltimore). 2019 Jul;98(29):e16438
pubmed: 31335698
Health Informatics J. 2017 Dec;23(4):260-267
pubmed: 27161140
JAMA. 2014 Jun 11;311(22):2297-304
pubmed: 24915261
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2018 Oct;27(10):1092-1100
pubmed: 30003617
Ann Intern Med. 2018 Dec 4;169(11):741-750
pubmed: 30383139
JAMA. 1999 Oct 27;282(16):1523-9
pubmed: 10546691
JAMA Surg. 2016 Nov 1;151(11):1046-1055
pubmed: 27579793
Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2020 Apr;16(4):457-463
pubmed: 32029370
Psychol Bull. 1968 Oct;70(4):213-20
pubmed: 19673146
BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Feb 13;14:70
pubmed: 24524687