Publication Abstract

Authors: Meyer AM, Kuo TM, Chang Y, Carpenter WR, Chen RC, Sturmer T

Title: Using Procedure Codes to Define Radiation Toxicity in Administrative Data: The Devil is in the Details.

Journal: Med Care 55(5):e36-e43

Date: 2017 May

PubMed ID: 25517072External Web Site Policy

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Systematic coding systems are used to define clinically meaningful outcomes when leveraging administrative claims data for research. How and when these codes are applied within a research study can have implications for the study validity and their specificity can vary significantly depending on treatment received. SUBJECTS: Data are from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked dataset. STUDY DESIGN: We use propensity score methods in a retrospective cohort of prostate cancer patients first examined in a recently published radiation oncology comparative effectiveness study. RESULTS: With the narrowly defined outcome definition, the toxicity event outcome rate ratio was 0.88 per 100 person-years (95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.08). With the broadly defined outcome, the rate ratio was comparable, with 0.89 per 100 person-years (95% confidence interval, 0.76-1.04), although individual event rates were doubled. Some evidence of surveillance bias was suggested by a higher rate of endoscopic procedures the first year of follow-up in patients who received proton therapy compared with those receiving intensity-modulated radiation treatment (11.15 vs. 8.90, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the risk of introducing bias through subjective application of procedure codes. Careful consideration is required when using procedure codes to define outcomes in administrative data.

Last Updated: 16 May, 2019