↓ Skip to main content

Validation of a Case-Finding Algorithm for Identifying Patients with Non-small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) in Administrative Claims Databases

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pharmacology, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Validation of a Case-Finding Algorithm for Identifying Patients with Non-small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) in Administrative Claims Databases
Published in
Frontiers in Pharmacology, November 2017
DOI 10.3389/fphar.2017.00883
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ralph M. Turner, Yen-Wen Chen, Ancilla W. Fernandes

Abstract

Objective: To assess the validity of a treatments- and tests-based Case-Finding Algorithm for identifying patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from claims databases. Data sources: Primary data from the HealthCore Integrated Research Environment (HIRE)-Oncology database and the HealthCore Integrated Research Database (HIRD) were collected between June 1, 2014, and October 31, 2015. Study design: A comparative statistical evaluation using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and other validity measures was used to validate the NSCLC Case-Finding Algorithm vs. a control algorithm. Data collection: Patients with lung cancer were identified based on diagnosis and pathology classifications as NSCLC or small-cell lung cancer. Records from identified patients were linked to claims data from Anthem health plans. Three-month pre-index and post-index data were included. Principal findings: The NSCLC Case-Finding Algorithm had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.88 compared with 0.53 in the control (p < 0.0001). Promising diagnostic accuracy was observed for the NSCLC Case-Finding Algorithm based on sensitivity (94.8%), specificity (81.1%), positive predictive value (PPV) (95.3%), negative predictive value (NPV) (79.6%), accuracy (92.1%), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) (78.8). Conclusions: The NSCLC Case-Finding Algorithm demonstrated strong validity for distinguishing patients with NSCLC from those with SCLC in claims data records and can be used for research into NSCLC populations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 22%
Researcher 3 17%
Other 2 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 50%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 6%
Chemistry 1 6%
Engineering 1 6%
Unknown 6 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 December 2017.
All research outputs
#18,576,855
of 23,008,860 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#8,367
of 16,314 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#325,625
of 437,899 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#127
of 251 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,008,860 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,314 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 437,899 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 251 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.