BACKGROUND: Systematic coding systems are used to define clinically meaningful outcomes when leveraging administrative claims data for research.
How and when these codes are applied within a research study can have implications for the study validity and their specificity can vary significantly depending on treatment received.
SUBJECTS: Data are from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked dataset.
STUDY DESIGN: We use propensity score methods in a retrospective cohort of prostate cancer patients first examined in a recently published radiation oncology comparative effectiveness study.
RESULTS: With the narrowly defined outcome definition, the toxicity event outcome rate ratio was 0.88 per 100 person-years (95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.08). With the broadly defined outcome, the rate ratio was comparable, with 0.89 per 100 person-years (95% confidence interval, 0.76-1.04), although individual event rates were doubled. Some evidence of surveillance bias was suggested by a higher rate of endoscopic procedures the first year of follow-up in patients who received proton therapy compared with those receiving intensity-modulated radiation treatment (11.15 vs. 8.90, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the risk of introducing bias through subjective application of procedure codes. Careful consideration is required when using procedure codes to define outcomes in administrative data.
Meyer AM, Kuo TM, Chang Y, Carpenter WR, Chen RC, Sturmer T. Are you the author?
Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Department of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health; Department of Radiation Oncology, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.
Reference: Med Care. 2014 Dec 16. Epub ahead of print.