IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0276299.html

Healthcare claims-based Lyme disease case-finding algorithms in the United States: A systematic literature review

Author

Listed:
  • Young Hee Nam
  • Sarah J Willis
  • Aaron B Mendelsohn
  • Susan Forrow
  • Bradford D Gessner
  • James H Stark
  • Jeffrey S Brown
  • Sarah Pugh

Abstract

Background and objective: Lyme disease (LD) is the fifth most commonly reported notifiable infectious disease in the United States (US) with approximately 35,000 cases reported in 2019 via public health surveillance. However, healthcare claims-based studies estimate that the number of LD cases is >10 times larger than reported through surveillance. To assess the burden of LD using healthcare claims data and the effectiveness of interventions for LD prevention and treatment, it is important to use validated well-performing LD case-finding algorithms (“LD algorithms”). We conducted a systematic literature review to identify LD algorithms used with US healthcare claims data and their validation status. Methods: We searched PubMed and Embase for articles published in English since January 1, 2000 (search date: February 20, 2021), using the following search terms: (1) “Lyme disease”; and (2) “claim*” or “administrative* data”; and (3) “United States” or “the US*”. We then reviewed the titles, abstracts, full texts, and bibliographies of the articles to select eligible articles, i.e., those describing LD algorithms used with US healthcare claims data. Results: We identified 15 eligible articles. Of these, seven studies used LD algorithms with LD diagnosis codes only, four studies used LD diagnosis codes and antibiotic dispensing records, and the remaining four studies used serologic test order codes in combination with LD diagnosis codes and antibiotics records. Only one of the studies that provided data on algorithm performance: sensitivity 50% and positive predictive value 5%, and this was based on Lyme disease diagnosis code only. Conclusions: US claims-based LD case-finding algorithms have used diverse strategies. Only one algorithm was validated, and its performance was poor. Further studies are warranted to assess performance for different algorithm designs and inform efforts to better assess the true burden of LD.

Suggested Citation

  • Young Hee Nam & Sarah J Willis & Aaron B Mendelsohn & Susan Forrow & Bradford D Gessner & James H Stark & Jeffrey S Brown & Sarah Pugh, 2022. "Healthcare claims-based Lyme disease case-finding algorithms in the United States: A systematic literature review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(10), pages 1-10, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0276299
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0276299
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0276299
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0276299&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0276299?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0276299. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.