Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Annals of Surgical Oncology
Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 2/2008

01-02-2008 | Other

Limitations of Claims and Registry Data in Surgical Oncology Research

Authors: Hari Nathan, MD, Timothy M. Pawlik, MD, MPH

Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Issue 2/2008

Login to get access

Abstract

Studies based on large population-based data sets, such as administrative claims data and tumor registry data, have become increasingly common in surgical oncology research. These data sets can be acquired relatively easily, and they offer larger sample sizes and improved generalizability compared with institutional data. There are, however, significant limitations that must be considered in the analysis and interpretation of such data. Invalid conclusions can result when insufficient attention is paid to issues such as data quality and depth, potential sources of bias, missing data, type I error, and the assessment of statistical significance. This article reviews some important limitations of population-based data sets and the methods used to analyze them. The candid reporting of these issues in the literature and an increased awareness among surgical oncologists of these limitations will ensure that population-based studies in the surgical oncology literature achieve high standards of methodological quality and clinical utility.
Literature
1.
Virnig BA, McBean M. Administrative data for public health surveillance and planning. Ann Rev Public Health 2001; 22:213–30CrossRef
2.
Cooper GS, Virnig B, Klabunde CN, Schussler N, Freeman J, Warren JL. Use of SEER-Medicare data for measuring cancer surgery. Med Care 2002; 40(8 Suppl IV-):43–8
3.
Romano PS, Chan BK, Schembri ME, Rainwater JA. Can administrative data be used to compare postoperative complication rates across hospitals? Med Care 2002; 40(10):856–67PubMedCrossRef
4.
Hawker GA, Coyte PC, Wright JG, Paul JE, Bombardier C. Accuracy of administrative data for assessing outcomes after knee replacement surgery. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50(3):265–73PubMedCrossRef
5.
6.
Warren JL, Klabunde CN, Schrag D, Bach PB, Riley GF. Overview of the SEER-Medicare data: content, research applications, and generalizability to the United States elderly population. Med Care 2002; 40(8 Suppl IV-):3–18
7.
8.
Delgado-Rodriguez M, Llorca J. Bias. J Epidemiol Commun Health 2004; 58(8):635–41CrossRef
9.
Rubin DB. Estimating causal effects from large data sets using propensity scores. Ann Intern Med 1997; 127(8 Pt 2):757–63PubMed
10.
Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983; 70(1):41–55CrossRef
11.
Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. J Am Stat Assoc 1984; 79(387):516–24CrossRef
12.
Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. Constructing a control-group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. Am Stat 1985; 39(1):33–8CrossRef
13.
Braitman LE, Rosenbaum PR. Rare outcomes, common treatments: analytic strategies using propensity scores. Ann Intern Med 2002; 137(8):693–5PubMed
14.
Stukel TA, Fisher ES, Wennberg DE, Alter DA, Gottlieb DJ, Vermeulen MJ. Analysis of observational studies in the presence of treatment selection bias: effects of invasive cardiac management on AMI survival using propensity score and instrumental variable methods. JAMA 2007; 297(3):278–85PubMedCrossRef
15.
Austin PC, Mamdani MM, Stukel TA, Anderson GM, Tu JV. The use of the propensity score for estimating treatment effects: administrative versus clinical data. Stat Med 2005; 24(10):1563–78PubMedCrossRef
16.
Harris KM, Remler DK. Who is the marginal patient? Understanding instrumental variables estimates of treatment effects. Health Serv Res 1998; 33(5 Pt 1):1337–60PubMed
17.
Byar DP. Why data bases should not replace randomized clinical trials. Biometrics 1980; 36(2):337–42PubMedCrossRef
18.
Green SB, Byar DP. Using observational data from registries to compare treatments: the fallacy of omnimetrics. Stat Med 1984; 3(4):361–73PubMedCrossRef
19.
Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40(5):373–83PubMedCrossRef
20.
Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Ciol MA. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol 1992; 45(6):613–9PubMedCrossRef
21.
Romano PS, Roos LL, Jollis JG. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative data: differing perspectives. J Clin Epidemiol 1993; 46(10):1075–9; discussion 81–90PubMedCrossRef
22.
Cleves MA, Sanchez N, Draheim M. Evaluation of two competing methods for calculating Charlson’s comorbidity index when analyzing short-term mortality using administrative data. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50(8):903–8PubMedCrossRef
23.
Quan H, Parsons GA, Ghali WA. Validity of information on comorbidity derived from ICD-9-CCM administrative data. Med Care 2002; 40(8):675–85PubMedCrossRef
24.
Malenka DJ, McLerran D, Roos N, Fisher ES, Wennberg JE. Using administrative data to describe casemix: a comparison with the medical record. J Clin Epidemiol 1994; 47(9):1027–32PubMedCrossRef
25.
Elixhauser A, Steiner C, Harris DR, Coffey RM. Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data. Med Care 1998; 36(1):8–27PubMedCrossRef
26.
Stukenborg GJ, Wagner DP, Connors AF Jr. Comparison of the performance of two comorbidity measures, with and without information from prior hospitalizations. Med Care 2001; 39(7):727–39PubMedCrossRef
27.
Southern DA, Quan H, Ghali WA. Comparison of the Elixhauser and Charlson/Deyo methods of comorbidity measurement in administrative data. Med Care 2004; 42(4):355–60PubMedCrossRef
28.
Baldwin LM, Klabunde CN, Green P, Barlow W, Wright G. In search of the perfect comorbidity measure for use with administrative claims data: does it exist? Med Care 2006; 44(8):745–53PubMedCrossRef
29.
Livingston EH. Development of bariatric surgery-specific risk assessment tool. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2007; 3(1):14–20; discussionPubMedCrossRef
30.
Klabunde CN, Potosky AL, Legler JM, Warren JL. Development of a comorbidity index using physician claims data. J Clin Epidemiol 2000; 53(12):1258–67PubMedCrossRef
31.
Klabunde CN, Legler JM, Warren JL, Baldwin LM, Schrag D. A Refined comorbidity measurement algorithm for claims-based studies of breast, prostate, colorectal, and lung cancer patients. Ann Epidemiol 2007; 17(8):584–90PubMedCrossRef
32.
Ghali WA, Hall RE, Rosen AK, Ash AS, Moskowitz MA. Searching for an improved clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative data. J Clin Epidemiol 1996; 49(3):273–8PubMedCrossRef
33.
Martins M, Blais R. Evaluation of comorbidity indices for inpatient mortality prediction models. J Clin Epidemiol 2006; 59(7):665–9PubMedCrossRef
34.
Pine M, Jordan HS, Elixhauser A, et al. Enhancement of claims data to improve risk adjustment of hospital mortality. JAMA 2007; 297(1):71–6PubMedCrossRef
35.
Klabunde CN, Warren JL, Legler JM. Assessing comorbidity using claims data: an overview. Med Care 2002; 40(8 Suppl IV):26–35
36.
Little RJA, Rubin DB. Statistical analysis with missing data. 2nd ed. Hoboken NJ: Wiley; 2002
37.
Rubin DB. Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. Hoboken NJ: Wiley-Interscience; 2004
38.
39.
Hill AB. The environment and disease: association or causation? Proc R Soc Med 1965; 58:295–300PubMed
Metadata
Title
Limitations of Claims and Registry Data in Surgical Oncology Research
Authors
Hari Nathan, MD
Timothy M. Pawlik, MD, MPH
Publication date
01-02-2008
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Issue 2/2008
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Electronic ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-007-9658-3

Other articles of this Issue 2/2008

Annals of Surgical Oncology 2/2008 Go to the issue

Breast Oncology

Is there any Prognostically Different Subgroup among Patients with Stage IIIC (Any TN3M0) Breast Carcinoma?

Breast Oncology

Terminal Duct Lobular Units are Scarce in the Nipple: Implications for Prophylactic Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy

Hepatic and Pancreatic Tumors

Prognostic Factors and Optimal Treatment Strategy for Intrahepatic Nodular Recurrence After Curative Resection of Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Gastrointestinal Oncology

Impact of the Site of Anastomosis after Oncologic Esophagectomy on Quality of Life — A Prospective, Longitudinal Outcome Study

Gastrointestinal Oncology

Effect of Adjuvant Radiotherapy on Local Recurrence in Stage II Rectal Cancer

Head and Neck Oncology

Prospective Identification of Chyle Leakage in Patients Undergoing Lateral Neck Dissection for Metastatic Thyroid Cancer