4.2 Article

The national healthcare system claims databases in France, SNIIRAM and EGB: Powerful tools for pharmacoepidemiology

期刊

PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY
卷 26, 期 8, 页码 954-962

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pds.4233

关键词

claims database; pharmacoepidemiology; population studies

资金

  1. Bordeaux PharmacoEpi, a research platform of the University of Bordeaux

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The French health care system is based on universal coverage by one of several health care insurance plans. The SNIIRAM database merges anonymous information of reimbursed claims from all these plans, linked to the national hospital-discharge summaries database system (PMSI) and the national death registry. It now covers 98.8% of the French population, over 66 million persons, from birth (or immigration) to death (or emigration), making it possibly the world's largest continuous homogeneous claims database. The database includes demographic data; health care encounters such as physician or paramedical visits, medicines, medical devices, and lab tests (without results); chronic medical conditions (ICD10 codes); hospitalisations with ICD10 codes for primary, linked and associated diagnoses, date and duration, procedures, diagnostic-related groups, and cost coding; date but currently not cause of death. The power of the database is correlatively great, and its representativeness is near perfect, since it essentially includes the whole country's population. The main difficulty in using the database, beyond its sheer size and complexity, is the administrative process necessary to access it. Recent legislative advances are making this easier. EGB (Echantillon Generaliste de Beneficiaires) is the 1/97th random permanent representative sample of SNIIRAM, with planned 20-year longitudinal data (10 years at this time). Access time is 1 to 3 months, but its power is less (780 000 subjects). This is enough to study common issues with older drugs but may be limited for new products or rare events.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据