4.3 Article

Positive predictive value between medical-chart body-mass-index category and obesity versus codes in a claims-data warehouse

期刊

CURRENT MEDICAL RESEARCH AND OPINION
卷 34, 期 1, 页码 117-121

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/03007995.2017.1366302

关键词

Obesity; body mass index; claims analysis; validation studies

资金

  1. Novo Nordisk Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To evaluate the positive predictive value of claims-based V85 codes for identifying individuals with varying degrees of BMI relative to their measured BMI obtained from medical record abstraction. Methods: This was a retrospective validation study utilizing administrative claims and medical chart data from 1 January 2009 to 31 August 2015. Randomly selected samples of patients enrolled in a Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug (MAPD) or commercial health plan and with a V85 claim were identified. The claims-based BMI category (underweight, normal weight, overweight, obese class I-III) was determined via corresponding V85 codes and compared to the BMI category derived from chart abstracted height, weight and/or BMI. The positive predictive values (PPVs) of the claims-based BMI categories were calculated with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: The overall PPVs (95% CIs) in the MAPD and commercial samples were 90.3% (86.3%-94.4%) and 91.1% (87.3%-94.9%), respectively. In each BMI category, the PPVs (95% CIs) for the MAPD and commercial samples, respectively, were: underweight, 71.0% (55.0%-87.0%) and 75.9% (60.3%-91.4%); normal, 93.8% (85.4%-100%) and 87.8% (77.8%-97.8%); overweight, 97.4% (92.5%-100%) and 93.5% (84.9%-100%); obese class I, 96.9 (90.9%-100%) and 97.2% (91.9%-100%); obese class II, 97.0% (91.1%-100%) and 93.0% (85.4%-100%); and obese class III, 85.0% (73.3%-96.1%) and 97.1% (91.4%-100%). Conclusions: BMI categories derived from administrative claims, when available, can be used successfully particularly in the context of obesity research.

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

4.3
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