Comparison of Fracture Identification Using Different Definitions in Healthcare Administrative (Claims) Data

Abstract

We identified inconsistency in fracture definitions in a prior review of studies that utilized claims data. Here, we aimed to compare fracture rates estimated using thirteen hip and seven radius/ulna fracture definitions. Our primary analysis compared results in a cohort of 120,363 older adults treated with oral bisphosphonates for ≥3 years. The most inclusive definition (hip: inpatient or emergency diagnosis; radius/ulna: inpatient, emergency, or outpatient diagnosis) served as a referent to compare the number and proportion of fractures captured. In sensitivity analyses, we considered a 180-day washout, excluded fractures associated with trauma; and hip only, excluded: (1) subtrochanteric fractures, and (2) hip replacement procedures. Hip fractures varied by definition in number (52–8058) and incidence (0.7–111.8/10,000 person-years). The second most inclusive definition required one inpatient diagnosis and identified 8% fewer hip fractures than the referent. Excluding hip replacements missed 33% of hip fractures relative to the primary analysis. Radius/ulna fractures also ranged in number (1589–6797) and incidence (22.0–94.3/10,000 person-years). Outpatient data were important, when restricted to inpatient or emergency data, only 78% of radius/ulna fractures were identified. Other than hip replacement procedures, sensitivity analyses had minimal impact on fracture identification. Analyses were replicated in a cohort of patients treated with long-term glucocorticoids. This study highlights the importance and impact of coding decisions on fracture outcome definitions. Further research is warranted to inform best practice in fracture outcome identification.