首页> 外文期刊>Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety >Why do covariates defined by International Classification of Diseases codes fail to remove confounding in pharmacoepidemiologic studies among seniors?
【24h】

Why do covariates defined by International Classification of Diseases codes fail to remove confounding in pharmacoepidemiologic studies among seniors?

机译:为什么《国际疾病分类》法规所定义的协变量无法消除老年人中药物流行病学研究中的困惑?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

PURPOSE: The common practice of using administrative diagnosis codes as the sole source of data on potential confounders in pharmacoepidemiologic studies has been shown to leave substantial residual confounding. We explored reasons why adjustment for comorbid illness defined from International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes fails to remove confounding. METHODS: We used data from a case-control study among immunocompetent seniors enrolled in Group Health to estimate bias in the estimated association between receipt of influenza vaccine and the risk of community-acquired pneumonia during non-influenza control periods and to estimate the effects of adjusting for comorbid illnesses defined from either ICD codes or the medical record. We also estimated the accuracy of ICD codes for identifying comorbid illnesses compared with the gold standard of medical record review. RESULTS: Sensitivity of ICD codes for illnesses recorded in the medical record ranged from 59 to 97% (median, 76%). Strong confounding was present in the vaccine/pneumonia association, as evidenced by the non-null odds ratio of 0.60 (95% confidence interval, 0.38-0.95) during this control period. Adjusting for the presence/absence of comorbid illnesses defined from either medical record review (odds ratio, 0.73) or from ICD codes (odds ratio, 0.68) left considerable residual confounding. CONCLUSIONS: ICD codes may fail to control for confounding because they often lack sensitivity for detecting comorbid illnesses and because measures of the presence/absence of comorbid illnesses may be insufficient to remove confounding. These findings call for caution in the use of ICD codes to control for confounding. Copyright (c) 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
机译:目的:在药物流行病学研究中,使用行政诊断代码作为有关潜在混杂因素的唯一数据来源的普遍做法已显示出大量残留的混杂因素。我们探讨了根据国际疾病分类(ICD)法规对合并症进行的调整未能消除混淆的原因。方法:我们使用了一项病例对照研究的数据,该研究来自参加Group Health的具有免疫能力的老年人,以估计在非流感控制期内流感疫苗接种与社区获得性肺炎风险之间的估计关联性偏倚,并评估根据ICD规范或病历定义的合并症进行调整。与医疗记录审查的金标准相比,我们还估计了用于识别共病的ICD代码的准确性。结果:ICD代码对病历中所记录疾病的敏感性为59%至97%(中位数为76%)。疫苗/肺炎相关性存在很强的混淆性,在此控制期间内,非零比值比为0.60(95%置信区间,0.38-0.95)证明了这一点。根据病历审查(比值比,0.73)或ICD规范(比值比,0.68)对合并症的存在/不存在进行调整后,会产生相当大的残留混淆。结论:ICD代码可能无法控制混杂因素,因为它们通常对检测并存疾病缺乏敏感性,并且由于存在/不存在并存疾病的措施可能不足以消除混淆。这些发现要求在使用ICD代码控制混杂时要谨慎。版权所有(c)2011 John Wiley&Sons,Ltd.

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号