CONTEXT: Public health surveillance systems for acute hepatitis are limited: clinician reporting is insensitive and electronic laboratory reporting is nonspecific. Insurance claims and electronic health records are potential alternative sources. OBJECTIVE: To compare the utility of laboratory data, diagnosis codes, and electronic health record combination data (current and prior viral hepatitis studies, liver function tests, and diagnosis codes) for acute hepatitis A and B surveillance. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. SETTING: Massachusetts ambulatory practice serving 350 000 patients per year. PARTICIPANTS: All patients seen between 1990 and 2008. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity and positive predictive value of immunoglobulin M (IgM), International Classification of Disease-Ninth Revision (ICD-9) diagnosis codes, and combination electronic health record data for acute hepatitis A and B. RESULTS: During the study period, there were 111 patients with positive hepatitis A IgMs, 154 with acute hepatitis A ICD-9 codes, and 77 with positive IgM and elevated liver function tests. On review, 79 cases were confirmed. Sensitivity and positive predictive value were 100% and 71% (95% confidence interval, 62%-79%) for IgM, 94% (92%-100%) and 48% (40%-56%) for ICD-9 codes and 97% (92%-100%) and 100% (96%-100%) for combination electronic health record data. There were 14 patients with positive hepatitis B core IgMs, 2564 with acute hepatitis B ICD-9 codes, and 125 with suggestive combinations of electronic health record data. Acute hepatitis B was confirmed in 122 patients. Sensitivity and positive predictive value were 9.4% (5.2%-16%) and 86% (60%-98%) for hepatitis B core IgM, 73% (65%-80%) and 3.6% (2.9%-4.4%) for ICD-9 codes, and 96% (91%-99%) and 98% (94%-99%) for electronic health record data. CONCLUSIONS: Laboratory surveillance using IgM tests overestimates the burden of acute hepatitis A and underestimates the burden of acute hepatitis B. Claims data are subject to many false positives. Electronic health record data are both sensitive and predictive. Electronic health record-based surveillance systems merit development.
CONTEXT: Public health surveillance systems for acute hepatitis are limited: clinician reporting is insensitive and electronic laboratory reporting is nonspecific. Insurance claims and electronic health records are potential alternative sources. OBJECTIVE: To compare the utility of laboratory data, diagnosis codes, and electronic health record combination data (current and prior viral hepatitis studies, liver function tests, and diagnosis codes) for acute hepatitis A and B surveillance. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. SETTING: Massachusetts ambulatory practice serving 350 000 patients per year. PARTICIPANTS: All patients seen between 1990 and 2008. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity and positive predictive value of immunoglobulin M (IgM), International Classification of Disease-Ninth Revision (ICD-9) diagnosis codes, and combination electronic health record data for acute hepatitis A and B. RESULTS: During the study period, there were 111 patients with positive hepatitis A IgMs, 154 with acute hepatitis A ICD-9 codes, and 77 with positive IgM and elevated liver function tests. On review, 79 cases were confirmed. Sensitivity and positive predictive value were 100% and 71% (95% confidence interval, 62%-79%) for IgM, 94% (92%-100%) and 48% (40%-56%) for ICD-9 codes and 97% (92%-100%) and 100% (96%-100%) for combination electronic health record data. There were 14 patients with positive hepatitis B core IgMs, 2564 with acute hepatitis B ICD-9 codes, and 125 with suggestive combinations of electronic health record data. Acute hepatitis B was confirmed in 122 patients. Sensitivity and positive predictive value were 9.4% (5.2%-16%) and 86% (60%-98%) for hepatitis B core IgM, 73% (65%-80%) and 3.6% (2.9%-4.4%) for ICD-9 codes, and 96% (91%-99%) and 98% (94%-99%) for electronic health record data. CONCLUSIONS: Laboratory surveillance using IgM tests overestimates the burden of acute hepatitis A and underestimates the burden of acute hepatitis B. Claims data are subject to many false positives. Electronic health record data are both sensitive and predictive. Electronic health record-based surveillance systems merit development.
Authors: Michael Klompas; Jason McVetta; Ross Lazarus; Emma Eggleston; Gillian Haney; Benjamin A Kruskal; W Katherine Yih; Patricia Daly; Paul Oppedisano; Brianne Beagan; Michael Lee; Chaim Kirby; Dawn Heisey-Grove; Alfred DeMaria; Richard Platt Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Luke V Rasmussen; Will K Thompson; Jennifer A Pacheco; Abel N Kho; David S Carrell; Jyotishman Pathak; Peggy L Peissig; Gerard Tromp; Joshua C Denny; Justin B Starren Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2014-06-21 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Abdool S Yasseen; Jeffrey C Kwong; Rafal Kustra; Laura Holder; Hannah Chung; Liane Macdonald; Naveed Z Janjua; Tony Mazzulli; Jordan Feld; Natasha S Crowcroft Journal: Can J Public Health Date: 2021-01-08
Authors: Jack X Q Pang; Erin Ross; Meredith A Borman; Scott Zimmer; Gilaad G Kaplan; Steven J Heitman; Mark G Swain; Kelly W Burak; Hude Quan; Robert P Myers Journal: BMC Gastroenterol Date: 2015-09-11 Impact factor: 3.067
Authors: Zubair Afzal; Gwen M C Masclee; Miriam C J M Sturkenboom; Jan A Kors; Martijn J Schuemie Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-03-04 Impact factor: 3.240