IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0066116.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Claims-Based Definition of Death in Japanese Claims Database: Validity and Implications

Author

Listed:
  • Nobuhiro Ooba
  • Soko Setoguchi
  • Takashi Ando
  • Tsugumichi Sato
  • Takuhiro Yamaguchi
  • Mayumi Mochizuki
  • Kiyoshi Kubota

Abstract

Background: For the pending National Claims Database in Japan, researchers will not have access to death information in the enrollment files. We developed and evaluated a claims-based definition of death. Methodology/Principal Findings: We used healthcare claims and enrollment data between January 2005 and August 2009 for 195,193 beneficiaries aged 20 to 74 in 3 private health insurance unions. We developed claims-based definitions of death using discharge or disease status and Charlson comorbidity index (CCI). We calculated sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive values (PPVs) using the enrollment data as a gold standard in the overall population and subgroups divided by demographic and other factors. We also assessed bias and precision in two example studies where an outcome was death. The definition based on the combination of discharge/disease status and CCI provided moderate sensitivity (around 60%) and high specificity (99.99%) and high PPVs (94.8%). In most subgroups, sensitivity of the preferred definition was also around 60% but varied from 28 to 91%. In an example study comparing death rates between two anticancer drug classes, the claims-based definition provided valid and precise hazard ratios (HRs). In another example study comparing two classes of anti-depressants, the HR with the claims-based definition was biased and had lower precision than that with the gold standard definition. Conclusions/Significance: The claims-based definitions of death developed in this study had high specificity and PPVs while sensitivity was around 60%. The definitions will be useful in future studies when used with attention to the possible fluctuation of sensitivity in some subpopulations.

Suggested Citation

  • Nobuhiro Ooba & Soko Setoguchi & Takashi Ando & Tsugumichi Sato & Takuhiro Yamaguchi & Mayumi Mochizuki & Kiyoshi Kubota, 2013. "Claims-Based Definition of Death in Japanese Claims Database: Validity and Implications," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(5), pages 1-7, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0066116
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0066116
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0066116
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0066116&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0066116?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alvin Ho-ting Li & S Joseph Kim & Jagadish Rangrej & Damon C Scales & Salimah Shariff & Donald A Redelmeier & Greg Knoll & Ann Young & Amit X Garg, 2013. "Validity of Physician Billing Claims to Identify Deceased Organ Donors in Large Healthcare Databases," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-6, August.
    2. Aziz Jamal & Akira Babazono & Yunfei Li & Takako Fujita & Shinichiro Yoshida & Sung A Kim, 2021. "Elucidating variations in outcomes among older end-stage renal disease patients on hemodialysis in Fukuoka Prefecture, Japan," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(5), pages 1-21, May.
    3. Takahashi, Yoshimitsu & Ishizaki, Tatsuro & Nakayama, Takeo & Kawachi, Ichiro, 2016. "Social network analysis of duplicative prescriptions: One-month analysis of medical facilities in Japan," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(3), pages 334-341.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0066116. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.