↓ Skip to main content

Measurement of skeletal related events in SEER-Medicare: a comparison of claims-based methods

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 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
Measurement of skeletal related events in SEER-Medicare: a comparison of claims-based methods
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12874-015-0047-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Abdalla Aly, Eberechukwu Onukwugha, Corinne Woods, C. Daniel Mullins, Young Kwok, Yi Qian, Jorge Arellano, Arun Balakumaran, Arif Hussain

Abstract

Skeletal related events (SREs) are common in men with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC). Various methods have been used to identify SREs from claims data. The objective of this study was to provide a framework for measuring SREs from claims and compare SRE prevalence and cumulative incidence estimates based on alternative approaches in men with mPC. Several claims-based approaches for identifying SREs were developed and applied to data for men aged [greater than or equal to] 66 years newly diagnosed with mPC between 2000 and 2009 in the SEER-Medicare datasets and followed through 2010 or until censoring. Post-diagnosis SREs were identified using claims that indicated spinal cord compression (SCC), pathologic fracture (PF), surgery to bone (BS), or radiation (suggestive of bone palliative radiation, RAD). To measure SRE prevalence, two SRE definitions were created: 'base case' (most commonly used in the literature) and 'alternative' in which different claims were used to identify each type of SRE. To measure cumulative incidence, we used the 'base case' definition and applied three periods in which claims were clustered to episodes: 14-, 21-, and 28-day windows. Among 8997 mPC patients, 46 % experienced an SRE according to the 'base case' definition and 43 % patients experienced an SRE according to the 'alternative' definition. Varying the code definition from 'base case' to 'alternative' resulted in an 8 % increase in the overall SRE prevalence. Using the 21-day window, a total of 12,930 SRE episodes were observed during follow up. Varying the window length from 21 to 28 days resulted in an 8 % decrease in SRE cumulative incidence (RAD: 10 %, PF: 8 %, SCC: 6 %, BS: 0.2 %). SRE prevalence was affected by the codes used, with PF being most impacted. The overall SRE cumulative incidence was affected by the window length used, with RAD being most affected. These results underscore the importance of the baseline definitions used to study claims data when attempting to understand relevant clinical events such as SREs in the real world setting.

Twitter Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 14%
Student > Master 4 14%
Student > Postgraduate 3 10%
Other 3 10%
Other 6 21%
Unknown 5 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 52%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 7%
Engineering 2 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 6 21%

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 02 April 2016.
All research outputs
#5,657,653
of 7,476,637 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#628
of 771 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,307
of 272,233 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#30
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,476,637 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 771 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% 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 272,233 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.