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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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