Trends in the Completeness and Validity of Sources of Death Data Against the National Death Index From 2010 to 2018.

IF 2.4 4区医学 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY

Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety Pub Date : 2024-08-01 DOI:10.1002/pds.5870

Todd Sponholtz, Aziza Jamal-Allial, Shiva K Vojjala, Anahit Papazian, Biruk Eshete, Mark Paullin, Seyed Hamidreza Mahmoudpour, Patrice Verpillat, Daniel C Beachler

{"title":"Trends in the Completeness and Validity of Sources of Death Data Against the National Death Index From 2010 to 2018.","authors":"Todd Sponholtz, Aziza Jamal-Allial, Shiva K Vojjala, Anahit Papazian, Biruk Eshete, Mark Paullin, Seyed Hamidreza Mahmoudpour, Patrice Verpillat, Daniel C Beachler","doi":"10.1002/pds.5870","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: We investigated time trends in validation performance characteristics for six sources of death data available within the Healthcare Integrated Research Database (HIRD) over 8 years.Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of a cohort of advanced cancer patients with linked National Death Index (NDI) data identified in the HIRD between 2010 and 2018. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for six sources of death status data and an algorithm combining data from available sources using NDI data as the reference standard. Measures were calculated for each year of the study including all members in the cohort for at least 1 day in that year.Results: We identified 27 396 deaths from any source among 40 692 cohort members. Between 2010 and 2018, the sensitivity of the Death Master File (DMF) decreased from 0.77 (95% CI = 0.76, 0.79) to 0.12 (95% CI = 0.11, 0.14). In contrast, the sensitivity of online obituary data increased from 0.43 (95% CI = 0.41, 0.45) in 2012 to 0.71 (95% CI = 0.68, 0.73) in 2018. The sensitivity of the composite algorithm remained above 0.83 throughout the study period. PPV was observed to be high from 2010 to 2016 and decrease thereafter for all sources. Specificity and NPV remained at high levels throughout the study.Conclusions: We observed that the sensitivity of mortality data sources compared with the NDI could change substantially between 2010 and 2018. Other validation characteristics were less variable. Combining multiple sources of mortality data may be necessary to achieve adequate performance particularly for multiyear studies.","PeriodicalId":19782,"journal":{"name":"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety","volume":"33 8","pages":"e5870"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.5870","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: We investigated time trends in validation performance characteristics for six sources of death data available within the Healthcare Integrated Research Database (HIRD) over 8 years.

Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of a cohort of advanced cancer patients with linked National Death Index (NDI) data identified in the HIRD between 2010 and 2018. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for six sources of death status data and an algorithm combining data from available sources using NDI data as the reference standard. Measures were calculated for each year of the study including all members in the cohort for at least 1 day in that year.

Results: We identified 27 396 deaths from any source among 40 692 cohort members. Between 2010 and 2018, the sensitivity of the Death Master File (DMF) decreased from 0.77 (95% CI = 0.76, 0.79) to 0.12 (95% CI = 0.11, 0.14). In contrast, the sensitivity of online obituary data increased from 0.43 (95% CI = 0.41, 0.45) in 2012 to 0.71 (95% CI = 0.68, 0.73) in 2018. The sensitivity of the composite algorithm remained above 0.83 throughout the study period. PPV was observed to be high from 2010 to 2016 and decrease thereafter for all sources. Specificity and NPV remained at high levels throughout the study.

Conclusions: We observed that the sensitivity of mortality data sources compared with the NDI could change substantially between 2010 and 2018. Other validation characteristics were less variable. Combining multiple sources of mortality data may be necessary to achieve adequate performance particularly for multiyear studies.

查看原文本刊更多论文

2010 年至 2018 年与全国死亡指数相对照的死亡数据来源的完整性和有效性趋势。

目的：我们调查了医疗保健综合研究数据库（HIRD）中可用的六种死亡数据来源的验证性能特征的时间趋势：我们对2010年至2018年期间在HIRD中发现的具有关联国家死亡指数（NDI）数据的晚期癌症患者队列进行了二次分析。我们计算了六种死亡状态数据来源的灵敏度、特异性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值，以及一种以 NDI 数据为参考标准、结合现有来源数据的算法。对研究的每一年都进行了计算，包括队列中当年至少一天的所有成员：我们在 40 692 名队列成员中发现了 27 396 例死亡，死亡原因不一。2010 年至 2018 年间，死亡主文件 (DMF) 的灵敏度从 0.77（95% CI = 0.76，0.79）降至 0.12（95% CI = 0.11，0.14）。相比之下，在线讣告数据的灵敏度从2012年的0.43（95% CI = 0.41，0.45）上升到2018年的0.71（95% CI = 0.68，0.73）。在整个研究期间，综合算法的灵敏度一直保持在 0.83 以上。据观察，PPV 在 2010 年至 2016 年期间较高，此后在所有来源中均有所下降。在整个研究期间，特异性和 NPV 保持在较高水平：我们观察到，与 NDI 相比，死亡率数据源的灵敏度在 2010 年至 2018 年期间可能会发生很大变化。其他验证特征的变化较小。可能需要结合多种死亡率数据来源才能达到足够的性能，特别是对于多年期研究而言。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety 医学-药学

CiteScore

4.80

自引率

7.70%

发文量

173

审稿时长

3 months

期刊介绍： The aim of Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety is to provide an international forum for the communication and evaluation of data, methods and opinion in the discipline of pharmacoepidemiology. The Journal publishes peer-reviewed reports of original research, invited reviews and a variety of guest editorials and commentaries embracing scientific, medical, statistical, legal and economic aspects of pharmacoepidemiology and post-marketing surveillance of drug safety. Appropriate material in these categories may also be considered for publication as a Brief Report. Particular areas of interest include: design, analysis, results, and interpretation of studies looking at the benefit or safety of specific pharmaceuticals, biologics, or medical devices, including studies in pharmacovigilance, postmarketing surveillance, pharmacoeconomics, patient safety, molecular pharmacoepidemiology, or any other study within the broad field of pharmacoepidemiology; comparative effectiveness research relating to pharmaceuticals, biologics, and medical devices. Comparative effectiveness research is the generation and synthesis of evidence that compares the benefits and harms of alternative methods to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor a clinical condition, as these methods are truly used in the real world; methodologic contributions of relevance to pharmacoepidemiology, whether original contributions, reviews of existing methods, or tutorials for how to apply the methods of pharmacoepidemiology; assessments of harm versus benefit in drug therapy; patterns of drug utilization; relationships between pharmacoepidemiology and the formulation and interpretation of regulatory guidelines; evaluations of risk management plans and programmes relating to pharmaceuticals, biologics and medical devices.