PURPOSE: Electronic health records (EHRs) present an opportunity to access large stores of data for research, but mapping raw EHR data to clinical phenotypes is complex. We propose adding patient-reported data to the EHR to improve phenotyping performance and describe a retrospective cohort study demonstrating a test case in depressive disorder. METHODS: We compared four EHR-phenotyping methods based on International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes, medication records, and the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9) regarding the ability to identify cases with depression and characteristics of patients identified with depression. Our sample included 168,884 patients seen (2007-2013) at our neurological institute. We assessed the diagnostic performance in a subset of 225 patients who had a reference standard measurement available. RESULTS: ICD-9-CM codes identified the fewest number of patients as depressed (4,658), followed by PHQ-9 (46,565), and medication data (50,505). The presence of at least one of these criteria identified the largest number (78,322). The PHQ-9 identified a higher proportion of elderly, disabled, Medicaid, and rural patients, as compared to ICD-9-CM codes. ICD-9-CM codes were least sensitive (6.7% sensitivity), whereas the method using at least one of the criteria identified the highest number of truly depressed patients (93.3% sensitivity); however, specificity dropped from 97.7 to 58.1%. CONCLUSIONS: The choice of phenotyping method may disproportionately exclude patient groups from research. Patient-reported data hold potential to improve sensitivity while maintaining an acceptable loss of specificity, depending on the context. Researchers should consider including patient-reported data in EHR-driven phenotyping methods.
PURPOSE: Electronic health records (EHRs) present an opportunity to access large stores of data for research, but mapping raw EHR data to clinical phenotypes is complex. We propose adding patient-reported data to the EHR to improve phenotyping performance and describe a retrospective cohort study demonstrating a test case in depressive disorder. METHODS: We compared four EHR-phenotyping methods based on International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes, medication records, and the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9) regarding the ability to identify cases with depression and characteristics of patients identified with depression. Our sample included 168,884 patients seen (2007-2013) at our neurological institute. We assessed the diagnostic performance in a subset of 225 patients who had a reference standard measurement available. RESULTS: ICD-9-CM codes identified the fewest number of patients as depressed (4,658), followed by PHQ-9 (46,565), and medication data (50,505). The presence of at least one of these criteria identified the largest number (78,322). The PHQ-9 identified a higher proportion of elderly, disabled, Medicaid, and rural patients, as compared to ICD-9-CM codes. ICD-9-CM codes were least sensitive (6.7% sensitivity), whereas the method using at least one of the criteria identified the highest number of truly depressedpatients (93.3% sensitivity); however, specificity dropped from 97.7 to 58.1%. CONCLUSIONS: The choice of phenotyping method may disproportionately exclude patient groups from research. Patient-reported data hold potential to improve sensitivity while maintaining an acceptable loss of specificity, depending on the context. Researchers should consider including patient-reported data in EHR-driven phenotyping methods.
Authors: R H Perlis; D V Iosifescu; V M Castro; S N Murphy; V S Gainer; J Minnier; T Cai; S Goryachev; Q Zeng; P J Gallagher; M Fava; J B Weilburg; S E Churchill; I S Kohane; J W Smoller Journal: Psychol Med Date: 2011-06-20 Impact factor: 7.723
Authors: Katherine M Newton; Peggy L Peissig; Abel Ngo Kho; Suzette J Bielinski; Richard L Berg; Vidhu Choudhary; Melissa Basford; Christopher G Chute; Iftikhar J Kullo; Rongling Li; Jennifer A Pacheco; Luke V Rasmussen; Leslie Spangler; Joshua C Denny Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-03-26 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: D V Sheehan; Y Lecrubier; K H Sheehan; P Amorim; J Janavs; E Weiller; T Hergueta; R Baker; G C Dunbar Journal: J Clin Psychiatry Date: 1998 Impact factor: 4.384
Authors: Robert J Valuck; Heather O Anderson; Anne M Libby; Elias Brandt; Cathy Bryan; Richard R Allen; Elizabeth W Staton; David R West; Wilson D Pace Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2012 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.657
Authors: Jaivir S Rathore; Lara E Jehi; Youran Fan; Sima I Patel; Nancy Foldvary-Schaefer; Maya J Ramirez; Robyn M Busch; Nancy A Obuchowski; George E Tesar Journal: Epilepsy Behav Date: 2014-07-26 Impact factor: 2.937
Authors: Christopher R Newey; Nicolas R Thompson; Pravin George; Vineet Punia; Stephen Hantus; Brittany Lapin; Joao Gomes; Irene Katzan Journal: Neurohospitalist Date: 2020-03-01