Stephan Lanes1, Jeffrey S Brown2, Kevin Haynes1, Michael F Pollack1, Alexander M Walker3. 1. HealthCore, Inc., Wilmington, DE, USA. 2. Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 3. World Health Information Science Consultants, Newton, MA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this review is to assist researchers in developing, using, and interpreting case-identifying algorithms in electronic healthcare databases. METHODS: We review clinical characteristics of health outcomes, data settings and informatics, and epidemiologic and statistical methods aspects as they pertain to the development and use of case-identifying algorithms. RESULTS: We offer a framework for thinking critically about the use of electronic health insurance data and electronic health records to identify the occurrence of health outcomes. Accuracy of case ascertainment in database research depends on many factors, including clinical and behavioral aspects of the health outcome, and details of database construction as it pertains to completeness and reliability of database content. Existing methods for diagnostic and screening tests, misclassification, validation studies, and predictive modelling can be usefully applied to improve case ascertainment in database research. CONCLUSIONS: Good case-identifying algorithms are based on a sound understanding of care-seeking behavior and patterns of clinical diagnosis and treatment in the study population and details about the construction and characteristics of the database. Researchers should use quantitative bias analyses to take into account the performance characteristics of case-identifying algorithms and their impact on study results.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this review is to assist researchers in developing, using, and interpreting case-identifying algorithms in electronic healthcare databases. METHODS: We review clinical characteristics of health outcomes, data settings and informatics, and epidemiologic and statistical methods aspects as they pertain to the development and use of case-identifying algorithms. RESULTS: We offer a framework for thinking critically about the use of electronic health insurance data and electronic health records to identify the occurrence of health outcomes. Accuracy of case ascertainment in database research depends on many factors, including clinical and behavioral aspects of the health outcome, and details of database construction as it pertains to completeness and reliability of database content. Existing methods for diagnostic and screening tests, misclassification, validation studies, and predictive modelling can be usefully applied to improve case ascertainment in database research. CONCLUSIONS: Good case-identifying algorithms are based on a sound understanding of care-seeking behavior and patterns of clinical diagnosis and treatment in the study population and details about the construction and characteristics of the database. Researchers should use quantitative bias analyses to take into account the performance characteristics of case-identifying algorithms and their impact on study results.
Authors: Sophia R Newcomer; Stan Xu; Martin Kulldorff; Matthew F Daley; Bruce Fireman; Jason M Glanz Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2019-12-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Dae Hyun Kim; Jung Lee; Caroline A Kim; Krista F Huybrechts; Brian T Bateman; Elisabetta Patorno; Edward R Marcantonio Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2017-05-09 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Sophia R Newcomer; Martin Kulldorff; Stan Xu; Matthew F Daley; Bruce Fireman; Edwin Lewis; Jason M Glanz Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2018-01-02 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Sarah P Huepenbecker; Hui Zhao; Charlotte C Sun; Shuangshuang Fu; Weiguo He; Sharon H Giordano; Larissa A Meyer Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2022-03