Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2023 Jan 28;5(2):58-64.
doi: 10.37737/ace.23008. eCollection 2023.

A Review of Studies Using Japanese Nationwide Administrative Claims Databases

Affiliations
Review

A Review of Studies Using Japanese Nationwide Administrative Claims Databases

So Sato et al. Ann Clin Epidemiol. .

Abstract

Background: Administrative claims databases are increasingly being used worldwide for research purposes. We reviewed original published articles that used one of the four nationwide administrative claims databases in Japan: the National Database of Health Insurance Claims and Specific Health Checkups (NDB), NDB Open Data, the JMDC Claims Database, and the Diagnosis Procedure Combination (DPC) database.

Methods: Studies published from January 2010 to July 2022 using the JMDC and DPC databases, and from January 2013 to July 2022 using the NDB and NDB Open Data were identified using PubMed. The number of original articles was divided into 19 fields. The annual growth rate of the number of studies was calculated using the four databases.

Results: Overall, 1047 studies were included (95 for the NDB, 31 for the NDB Open Data, 222 for the JMDC database, and 699 for the DPC databases). Studies using one of these four databases increased from around 2010, and the average annual growth rate was approximately 41% from 2010 to 2021. DPC database studies had a higher proportion of articles on surgery (19.2%), urology (3.0%), neurosurgery (6.2%), anesthesiology (1.9%), and emergency medicine (14.0%), whereas the NDB and JMDC data had higher proportions of those regarding internal medicine.

Conclusions: Since 2010, these four databases have increasingly attracted attention, and the number of studies using them has grown rapidly. Our review suggests that each has unique features, and researchers should understand the database characteristics to operate their studies.

Keywords: DPC; JMDC; NDB; administrative claims database; nationwide database.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1. Flow diagram of the study selection
NDB, National Database of Health Insurance Claims and Specific Health Checkups; JMDC, the JMDC Claims Database; DPC, the Diagnosis Procedure Combination database
Fig. 2
Fig. 2. The number of published articles in the four databases between 2010 and 2021
NDB, National Database of Health Insurance Claims and Specific Health Checkups; JMDC, the JMDC Claims Database; DPC, the Diagnosis Procedure Combination database

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Schneeweiss S, Avorn J. A Review of Uses of Health Care Utilization Databases for Epidemiologic Research on Therapeutics. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58:323–337. - PubMed
    1. Suissa S, Garbe E. Primer: Administrative Health Databases in Observational Studies of Drug Effects-Advantages and Disadvantages. Nat Clin Pract Rheumatol 2007;3:725–732. - PubMed
    1. Harpe SE. Using Secondary Data Sources for Pharmacoepidemiology and Outcomes Research. Pharmacotherapy 2009;29:138–153. - PubMed
    1. Gandhi SK, Salmon W, Kong SX, Zhao SZ. Administrative databases and outcomes assessment: an overview of issues and potential utility. J Manag Care Pharm 1999;5:215–222.
    1. Hirose N, Ishimaro M, Morito K, Yasunaga H. A review of studies using the Japanese national database of health insurance claims and specific health checkups. Ann Clin Epidemiol 2020;2.1:13–26.

LinkOut - more resources