BACKGROUND: The performance of automated algorithms for childhood diabetes case ascertainment and type classification may differ by demographic characteristics. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the potential of administrative and electronic health record (EHR) data from a large academic care delivery system to conduct diabetes case ascertainment in youth according to type, age, and race/ethnicity. SUBJECTS: Of 57 767 children aged <20 yr as of 31 December 2011 seen at University of North Carolina Health Care System in 2011 were included. METHODS: Using an initial algorithm including billing data, patient problem lists, laboratory test results, and diabetes related medications between 1 July 2008 and 31 December 2011, presumptive cases were identified and validated by chart review. More refined algorithms were evaluated by type (type 1 vs. type 2), age (<10 vs. ≥10 yr) and race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic White vs. 'other'). Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value were calculated and compared. RESULTS: The best algorithm for ascertainment of overall diabetes cases was billing data. The best type 1 algorithm was the ratio of the number of type 1 billing codes to the sum of type 1 and type 2 billing codes ≥0.5. A useful algorithm to ascertain youth with type 2 diabetes with 'other' race/ethnicity was identified. Considerable age and racial/ethnic differences were present in type-non-specific and type 2 algorithms. CONCLUSIONS: Administrative and EHR data may be used to identify cases of childhood diabetes (any type), and to identify type 1 cases. The performance of type 2 case ascertainment algorithms differed substantially by race/ethnicity.
BACKGROUND: The performance of automated algorithms for childhood diabetes case ascertainment and type classification may differ by demographic characteristics. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the potential of administrative and electronic health record (EHR) data from a large academic care delivery system to conduct diabetes case ascertainment in youth according to type, age, and race/ethnicity. SUBJECTS: Of 57 767 children aged <20 yr as of 31 December 2011 seen at University of North Carolina Health Care System in 2011 were included. METHODS: Using an initial algorithm including billing data, patient problem lists, laboratory test results, and diabetes related medications between 1 July 2008 and 31 December 2011, presumptive cases were identified and validated by chart review. More refined algorithms were evaluated by type (type 1 vs. type 2), age (<10 vs. ≥10 yr) and race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic White vs. 'other'). Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value were calculated and compared. RESULTS: The best algorithm for ascertainment of overall diabetes cases was billing data. The best type 1 algorithm was the ratio of the number of type 1 billing codes to the sum of type 1 and type 2 billing codes ≥0.5. A useful algorithm to ascertain youth with type 2 diabetes with 'other' race/ethnicity was identified. Considerable age and racial/ethnic differences were present in type-non-specific and type 2 algorithms. CONCLUSIONS: Administrative and EHR data may be used to identify cases of childhood diabetes (any type), and to identify type 1 cases. The performance of type 2 case ascertainment algorithms differed substantially by race/ethnicity.
Authors: Angela D Liese; Ralph B D'Agostino; Richard F Hamman; Patrick D Kilgo; Jean M Lawrence; Lenna L Liu; Beth Loots; Barbara Linder; Santica Marcovina; Beatriz Rodriguez; Debra Standiford; Desmond E Williams Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Julienne K Kirk; Ralph B D'Agostino; Ronny A Bell; Leah V Passmore; Denise E Bonds; Andrew J Karter; K M Venkat Narayan Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Jinan B Saaddine; Anne Fagot-Campagna; Deborah Rolka; K M Venkat Narayan; Linda Geiss; Mark Eberhardt; Katherine M Flegal Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Amanda E Staiano; Madeline Morrell; Daniel S Hsia; Gang Hu; Peter T Katzmarzyk Journal: Metab Syndr Relat Disord Date: 2016-07-11 Impact factor: 1.894
Authors: Maxwell J Richardson; Stephen K Van Den Eeden; Eric Roberts; Assiamira Ferrara; Susan Paulukonis; Paul English Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2017-06-06 Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Marcela Osorio; Christian A Koziatek; Mary Pat Gallagher; Jessie Recaii; Meryle Weinstein; Lorna E Thorpe; Brian Elbel; David C Lee Journal: Acad Pediatr Date: 2020-04-07 Impact factor: 3.107
Authors: Emily B Schroeder; William T Donahoo; Glenn K Goodrich; Marsha A Raebel Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2018-01-02 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Victor W Zhong; Jihad S Obeid; Jean B Craig; Emily R Pfaff; Joan Thomas; Lindsay M Jaacks; Daniel P Beavers; Timothy S Carey; Jean M Lawrence; Dana Dabelea; Richard F Hamman; Deborah A Bowlby; Catherine Pihoker; Sharon H Saydah; Elizabeth J Mayer-Davis Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2016-04-23 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Brian J Wells; Kristin M Lenoir; Lynne E Wagenknecht; Elizabeth J Mayer-Davis; Jean M Lawrence; Dana Dabelea; Catherine Pihoker; Sharon Saydah; Ramon Casanova; Christine Turley; Angela D Liese; Debra Standiford; Michael G Kahn; Richard Hamman; Jasmin Divers Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2020-07-31 Impact factor: 19.112