Literature DB >> 24026307

A comparison of phenotype definitions for diabetes mellitus.

Rachel L Richesson1, Shelley A Rusincovitch, Douglas Wixted, Bryan C Batch, Mark N Feinglos, Marie Lynn Miranda, W Ed Hammond, Robert M Califf, Susan E Spratt.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study compares the yield and characteristics of diabetes cohorts identified using heterogeneous phenotype definitions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Inclusion criteria from seven diabetes phenotype definitions were translated into query algorithms and applied to a population (n=173 503) of adult patients from Duke University Health System. The numbers of patients meeting criteria for each definition and component (diagnosis, diabetes-associated medications, and laboratory results) were compared.
RESULTS: Three phenotype definitions based heavily on ICD-9-CM codes identified 9-11% of the patient population. A broad definition for the Durham Diabetes Coalition included additional criteria and identified 13%. The electronic medical records and genomics, NYC A1c Registry, and diabetes-associated medications definitions, which have restricted or no ICD-9-CM criteria, identified the smallest proportions of patients (7%). The demographic characteristics for all seven phenotype definitions were similar (56-57% women, mean age range 56-57 years).The NYC A1c Registry definition had higher average patient encounters (54) than the other definitions (range 44-48) and the reference population (20) over the 5-year observation period. The concordance between populations returned by different phenotype definitions ranged from 50 to 86%. Overall, more patients met ICD-9-CM and laboratory criteria than medication criteria, but the number of patients that met abnormal laboratory criteria exclusively was greater than the numbers meeting diagnostic or medication data exclusively. DISCUSSION: Differences across phenotype definitions can potentially affect their application in healthcare organizations and the subsequent interpretation of data.
CONCLUSIONS: Further research focused on defining the clinical characteristics of standard diabetes cohorts is important to identify appropriate phenotype definitions for health, policy, and research.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Clinical Research; Diabetes; Electronic Health Records; Patient Registries; Phenotypes; Secondary Data Use

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24026307      PMCID: PMC3861928          DOI: 10.1136/amiajnl-2013-001952

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc        ISSN: 1067-5027            Impact factor:   4.497


  21 in total

1.  HMO research network to focus on cancer prevention and control.

Authors:  G Moulton
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1999-08-18       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  The role of research in integrated healthcare systems: the HMO Research Network.

Authors:  Thomas M Vogt; Jennifer Elston-Lafata; Dennis Tolsma; Sarah M Greene
Journal:  Am J Manag Care       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 2.229

3.  Identifying persons with diabetes using Medicare claims data.

Authors:  P L Hebert; L S Geiss; E F Tierney; M M Engelgau; B P Yawn; A M McBean
Journal:  Am J Med Qual       Date:  1999 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.852

4.  Relative contributions of incidence and survival to increasing prevalence of adult-onset diabetes mellitus: a population-based study.

Authors:  C L Leibson; P C O'Brien; E Atkinson; P J Palumbo; L J Melton
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1997-07-01       Impact factor: 4.897

5.  Improving primary care for patients with chronic illness: the chronic care model, Part 2.

Authors:  Thomas Bodenheimer; Edward H Wagner; Kevin Grumbach
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2002-10-16       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  The eMERGE Network: a consortium of biorepositories linked to electronic medical records data for conducting genomic studies.

Authors:  Catherine A McCarty; Rex L Chisholm; Christopher G Chute; Iftikhar J Kullo; Gail P Jarvik; Eric B Larson; Rongling Li; Daniel R Masys; Marylyn D Ritchie; Dan M Roden; Jeffery P Struewing; Wendy A Wolf
Journal:  BMC Med Genomics       Date:  2011-01-26       Impact factor: 3.063

7.  Tracking diabetes: New York City's A1C Registry.

Authors:  Shadi Chamany; Lynn D Silver; Mary T Bassett; Cynthia R Driver; Diana K Berger; Charlotte E Neuhaus; Namrata Kumar; Thomas R Frieden
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 4.911

8.  Variation in office-based quality. A claims-based profile of care provided to Medicare patients with diabetes.

Authors:  J P Weiner; S T Parente; D W Garnick; J Fowles; A G Lawthers; R H Palmer
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995-05-17       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Defining and measuring chronic conditions: imperatives for research, policy, program, and practice.

Authors:  Richard A Goodman; Samuel F Posner; Elbert S Huang; Anand K Parekh; Howard K Koh
Journal:  Prev Chronic Dis       Date:  2013-04-25       Impact factor: 2.830

10.  Agreement between physicians' office records and Medicare Part B claims data.

Authors:  J B Fowles; A G Lawthers; J P Weiner; D W Garnick; D S Petrie; R H Palmer
Journal:  Health Care Financ Rev       Date:  1995
View more
  54 in total

Review 1.  Unravelling the human genome-phenome relationship using phenome-wide association studies.

Authors:  William S Bush; Matthew T Oetjens; Dana C Crawford
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2016-02-15       Impact factor: 53.242

2.  Electronic health records-driven phenotyping: challenges, recent advances, and perspectives.

Authors:  Jyotishman Pathak; Abel N Kho; Joshua C Denny
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 4.497

3.  Using Self-reports or Claims to Assess Disease Prevalence: It's Complicated.

Authors:  Patricia St Clair; Étienne Gaudette; Henu Zhao; Bryan Tysinger; Roxanna Seyedin; Dana P Goldman
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 2.983

4.  Controlling for Informed Presence Bias Due to the Number of Health Encounters in an Electronic Health Record.

Authors:  Benjamin A Goldstein; Nrupen A Bhavsar; Matthew Phelan; Michael J Pencina
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2016-11-16       Impact factor: 4.897

5.  Clinical research informatics and electronic health record data.

Authors:  R L Richesson; M M Horvath; S A Rusincovitch
Journal:  Yearb Med Inform       Date:  2014-08-15

Review 6.  "Big data" and the electronic health record.

Authors:  M K Ross; W Wei; L Ohno-Machado
Journal:  Yearb Med Inform       Date:  2014-08-15

7.  Evaluating Public Health Interventions: 4. The Nurses' Health Study and Methods for Eliminating Bias Attributable to Measurement Error and Misclassification.

Authors:  Donna Spiegelman
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 9.308

8.  PheKB: a catalog and workflow for creating electronic phenotype algorithms for transportability.

Authors:  Jacqueline C Kirby; Peter Speltz; Luke V Rasmussen; Melissa Basford; Omri Gottesman; Peggy L Peissig; Jennifer A Pacheco; Gerard Tromp; Jyotishman Pathak; David S Carrell; Stephen B Ellis; Todd Lingren; Will K Thompson; Guergana Savova; Jonathan Haines; Dan M Roden; Paul A Harris; Joshua C Denny
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2016-03-28       Impact factor: 4.497

Review 9.  Opportunities and challenges in developing risk prediction models with electronic health records data: a systematic review.

Authors:  Benjamin A Goldstein; Ann Marie Navar; Michael J Pencina; John P A Ioannidis
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2016-05-17       Impact factor: 4.497

10.  Performing an Informatics Consult: Methods and Challenges.

Authors:  Alejandro Schuler; Alison Callahan; Kenneth Jung; Nigam H Shah
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2018-02-13       Impact factor: 5.532

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.