ABSTRACT
Background As highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers are eager to make use of a wide variety of data sources, both government-sponsored and alternative, to characterize the epidemiology of infectious diseases. To date, few studies have investigated the strengths and limitations of sources currently being used for such research. These are critical for policy makers to understand when interpreting study findings.
Methods To fill this gap in the literature, we compared infectious disease reporting for three diseases (measles, mumps, and varicella) across four different data sources: Optum (health insurance billing claims data), HealthMap (online news surveillance data), Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports (official government reports), and National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System (government case surveillance data). We reported the yearly number of national- and state-level disease-specific case counts and disease clusters according to each of our sources during a five-year study period (2013–2017).
Findings Our study demonstrated drastic differences in reported infectious disease incidence across data sources. When compared against the other three sources of interest, Optum data showed substantially higher, implausible standardized case counts for all three diseases. Although there was some concordance in identified state-level case counts and disease clusters, all four sources identified variations in state-level reporting.
Interpretation Researchers should consider data source limitations when attempting to characterize the epidemiology of infectious diseases. Some data sources, such as billing claims data, may be unsuitable for epidemiological research within the infectious disease context.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This project is supported in part through the NIH Director’s New Innovator Award DP2–;MD012722. MC is supported by the T32HS026128 grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Access to Optum Clinformatics® Data Mart was approved by Stanford University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) under protocol 40974.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data in the present study are available online with the exception of Optum Clinformatics® Data Mart.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/index.html
