Validation of Mortality Data Sources Compared to the National Death Index in the Healthcare Integrated Research Database.

IF 2.3 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL

Pragmatic and Observational Research Pub Date : 2025-02-07 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.2147/POR.S498221

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

{"title":"Validation of Mortality Data Sources Compared to the National Death Index in the Healthcare Integrated Research Database.","authors":"Aziza Jamal-Allial, Todd Sponholtz, Shiva K Vojjala, Mark Paullin, Anahit Papazian, Biruk Eshete, Seyed Hamidreza Mahmoudpour, Patrice Verpillat, Daniel C Beachler","doi":"10.2147/POR.S498221","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The National Death Index (NDI) is the gold standard for mortality data in the United States (US) but has a time lag and can be operationally intensive. This validation study assesses the accuracy of various mortality data sources with the NDI.Methods: This validation study is a secondary analysis of an advanced cancer cohort in the US between January 2010 and December 2018, with an established NDI linkage. Mortality data sources, inpatient discharge, disenrollment, death master file (DMF), Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Utilization management data (U.M.), and online obituary data were compared to NDI.Results: Among 40,692 patients, 25,761 (63.3%) had a death date using NDI; the composite algorithm had a sensitivity of 88.9% (95% CI = 88.5%, 89.3%), specificity was 89.1% (95% CI = 88.6%, 89.6%). At the same time, positive predictive value (PPV) was 93.4% (95% CI = 93.1%, 93.7%), negative predictive value (NPV) was 82.3% (95% CI = 81.7%, 82.9%), and when comparing each individual source, each had a high PPV but limited sensitivity.Conclusion: The composite algorithm was demonstrated to be a sensitive and precise measure of mortality, while individual database sources were accurate but had limited sensitivity.","PeriodicalId":20399,"journal":{"name":"Pragmatic and Observational Research","volume":"16 ","pages":"19-25"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11812554/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pragmatic and Observational Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/POR.S498221","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The National Death Index (NDI) is the gold standard for mortality data in the United States (US) but has a time lag and can be operationally intensive. This validation study assesses the accuracy of various mortality data sources with the NDI.

Methods: This validation study is a secondary analysis of an advanced cancer cohort in the US between January 2010 and December 2018, with an established NDI linkage. Mortality data sources, inpatient discharge, disenrollment, death master file (DMF), Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Utilization management data (U.M.), and online obituary data were compared to NDI.

Results: Among 40,692 patients, 25,761 (63.3%) had a death date using NDI; the composite algorithm had a sensitivity of 88.9% (95% CI = 88.5%, 89.3%), specificity was 89.1% (95% CI = 88.6%, 89.6%). At the same time, positive predictive value (PPV) was 93.4% (95% CI = 93.1%, 93.7%), negative predictive value (NPV) was 82.3% (95% CI = 81.7%, 82.9%), and when comparing each individual source, each had a high PPV but limited sensitivity.

Conclusion: The composite algorithm was demonstrated to be a sensitive and precise measure of mortality, while individual database sources were accurate but had limited sensitivity.

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Pragmatic and Observational Research MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Pragmatic and Observational Research is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access journal that publishes data from studies designed to closely reflect medical interventions in real-world clinical practice, providing insights beyond classical randomized controlled trials (RCTs). While RCTs maximize internal validity for cause-and-effect relationships, they often represent only specific patient groups. This journal aims to complement such studies by providing data that better mirrors real-world patients and the usage of medicines, thus informing guidelines and enhancing the applicability of research findings across diverse patient populations encountered in everyday clinical practice.