OBJECTIVE: We assessed the sensitivity and specificity of 8 electronic health record (EHR)-based phenotypes for diabetes mellitus against gold-standard American Diabetes Association (ADA) diagnostic criteria via chart review by clinical experts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified EHR-based diabetes phenotype definitions that were developed for various purposes by a variety of users, including academic medical centers, Medicare, the New York City Health Department, and pharmacy benefit managers. We applied these definitions to a sample of 173 503 patients with records in the Duke Health System Enterprise Data Warehouse and at least 1 visit over a 5-year period (2007-2011). Of these patients, 22 679 (13%) met the criteria of 1 or more of the selected diabetes phenotype definitions. A statistically balanced sample of these patients was selected for chart review by clinical experts to determine the presence or absence of type 2 diabetes in the sample. RESULTS: The sensitivity (62-94%) and specificity (95-99%) of EHR-based type 2 diabetes phenotypes (compared with the gold standard ADA criteria via chart review) varied depending on the component criteria and timing of observations and measurements. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Researchers using EHR-based phenotype definitions should clearly specify the characteristics that comprise the definition, variations of ADA criteria, and how different phenotype definitions and components impact the patient populations retrieved and the intended application. Careful attention to phenotype definitions is critical if the promise of leveraging EHR data to improve individual and population health is to be fulfilled.
OBJECTIVE: We assessed the sensitivity and specificity of 8 electronic health record (EHR)-based phenotypes for diabetes mellitus against gold-standard American Diabetes Association (ADA) diagnostic criteria via chart review by clinical experts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified EHR-based diabetes phenotype definitions that were developed for various purposes by a variety of users, including academic medical centers, Medicare, the New York City Health Department, and pharmacy benefit managers. We applied these definitions to a sample of 173 503 patients with records in the Duke Health System Enterprise Data Warehouse and at least 1 visit over a 5-year period (2007-2011). Of these patients, 22 679 (13%) met the criteria of 1 or more of the selected diabetes phenotype definitions. A statistically balanced sample of these patients was selected for chart review by clinical experts to determine the presence or absence of type 2 diabetes in the sample. RESULTS: The sensitivity (62-94%) and specificity (95-99%) of EHR-based type 2 diabetes phenotypes (compared with the gold standard ADA criteria via chart review) varied depending on the component criteria and timing of observations and measurements. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Researchers using EHR-based phenotype definitions should clearly specify the characteristics that comprise the definition, variations of ADA criteria, and how different phenotype definitions and components impact the patient populations retrieved and the intended application. Careful attention to phenotype definitions is critical if the promise of leveraging EHR data to improve individual and population health is to be fulfilled.
Authors: Rustam Kudyakov; James Bowen; Edward Ewen; Suzanne L West; Yahya Daoud; Neil Fleming; Andrew Masica Journal: Popul Health Manag Date: 2011-08-30 Impact factor: 2.459
Authors: Gregory A Nichols; Jay Desai; Jennifer Elston Lafata; Jean M Lawrence; Patrick J O'Connor; Ram D Pathak; Marsha A Raebel; Robert J Reid; Joseph V Selby; Barbara G Silverman; John F Steiner; W F Stewart; Suma Vupputuri; Beth Waitzfelder Journal: Prev Chronic Dis Date: 2012-06-07 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Susan E Spratt; Bryan C Batch; Lisa P Davis; Ashley A Dunham; Michele Easterling; Mark N Feinglos; Bradi B Granger; Gayle Harris; Michelle J Lyn; Pamela J Maxson; Bimal R Shah; Benjamin Strauss; Tainayah Thomas; Robert M Califf; Marie Lynn Miranda Journal: J Clin Transl Endocrinol Date: 2015-01-14
Authors: Danielle R Stevens; Brian Neelon; James R Roberts; Sarah N Taylor; Roger B Newman; John E Vena; Kelly J Hunt Journal: J Dev Orig Health Dis Date: 2020-02-20 Impact factor: 2.401
Authors: L E Boulware; G B Harris; P Harewood; F F Johnson; P Maxson; N Bhavsar; S S Blackwelder; S S Poley; K Arnold; B Akindele; J Ferranti; M Lyn Journal: J Public Health (Oxf) Date: 2020-11-23 Impact factor: 2.341
Authors: Faraz S Ahmad; Cheeling Chan; Marc B Rosenman; Wendy S Post; Daniel G Fort; Philip Greenland; Kiang J Liu; Abel N Kho; Norrina B Allen Journal: Circulation Date: 2017-07-07 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Elizabeth Y Wang; Olivia L Hulme; Shaan Khurshid; Lu-Chen Weng; Seung Hoan Choi; Allan J Walkey; Jeffrey M Ashburner; David D McManus; Daniel E Singer; Steven J Atlas; Emelia J Benjamin; Patrick T Ellinor; Ludovic Trinquart; Steven A Lubitz Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2020-02-12
Authors: Andrew D Wiese; Christianne L Roumie; John B Buse; Herodes Guzman; Robert Bradford; Emily Zalimeni; Patricia Knoepp; Heather L Morris; William T Donahoo; Nada Fanous; Britany F Epstein; Bonnie L Katalenich; Sujata G Ayala; Megan M Cook; Katherine J Worley; Katherine N Bachmann; Carlos G Grijalva; Russell L Rothman; Rosette J Chakkalakal Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2019-01-24 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Lu Chen; Susan M Shortreed; Thomas Easterling; T Craig Cheetham; Kristi Reynolds; Lyndsay A Avalos; Aruna Kamineni; Victoria Holt; Romain Neugebauer; Mary Akosile; Nerissa Nance; Zoe Bider-Canfield; Rod L Walker; Sylvia E Badon; Sascha Dublin Journal: Pregnancy Hypertens Date: 2020-01-03 Impact factor: 2.899
Authors: Dinah Foer; Patrick E Beeler; Jing Cui; Elizabeth W Karlson; David W Bates; Katherine N Cahill Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Kathleen A McGinnis; Amy C Justice; Sam Bailin; Melissa Wellons; Matthew Freiberg; John R Koethe Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 2.890