Tyler Williamson1, Rebecca C Miyagishima1, Janeen D Derochie1, Neil Drummond1. 1. Affiliations: Community Health Sciences (Williamson, Derochie), University of Calgary, Calgary, Alta.; School of Public Health (Miyagishima), University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta.; Department of Family Medicine (Drummond), University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta.; Department of Family Medicine (Drummond), University of Calgary, Calgary, Alta.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network (CPCSSN) previously carried out a validation study of case definitions for 8 chronic diseases (diabetes mellitus, hypertension, osteoarthritis, depression, dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, parkinsonism and epilepsy) using direct review of "raw" electronic medical record data. Although effective, this method is time-consuming and can present methodological and organizational challenges. We aimed to determine whether the processed and standardized data contained with the CPCSSN database might function as a reference standard for case definition validation. METHODS: Using a traditional validation study design, we compared the case identification results of the chart reviews for the 8 chronic diseases with the results of a manual review of the CPCSSN processed data for the same conditions in the same patient sample. Patients were randomly sampled from the June 30, 2012 CPCSSN database, with oversampling of patients with rare conditions. RESULTS: We analyzed data for 1906 patients. Manual review of the CPCSSN records for case ascertainment yielded sensitivity ranging from 77.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 73.3%-81.6%) for depression to 97.2% (95% CI 95.4%-99.0%) for diabetes. Specificity was high for all definitions (range 93.1% [95% CI 91.4%-94.7%] to 99.4% [95% CI 99.0%-99.8%]). Positive predictive values and negative predictive values also showed high accuracy of the manual CPCSSN record review relative to review of the raw chart data. INTERPRETATION: The use of CPCSSN records as the reference standard to validate case definitions substantially reduces the burden on sentinel physicians and clinic managers as well as on researchers while offering a reference standard that is a reasonable substitution for chart review. Copyright 2017, Joule Inc. or its licensors.
BACKGROUND: The Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network (CPCSSN) previously carried out a validation study of case definitions for 8 chronic diseases (diabetes mellitus, hypertension, osteoarthritis, depression, dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, parkinsonism and epilepsy) using direct review of "raw" electronic medical record data. Although effective, this method is time-consuming and can present methodological and organizational challenges. We aimed to determine whether the processed and standardized data contained with the CPCSSN database might function as a reference standard for case definition validation. METHODS: Using a traditional validation study design, we compared the case identification results of the chart reviews for the 8 chronic diseases with the results of a manual review of the CPCSSN processed data for the same conditions in the same patient sample. Patients were randomly sampled from the June 30, 2012 CPCSSN database, with oversampling of patients with rare conditions. RESULTS: We analyzed data for 1906 patients. Manual review of the CPCSSN records for case ascertainment yielded sensitivity ranging from 77.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 73.3%-81.6%) for depression to 97.2% (95% CI 95.4%-99.0%) for diabetes. Specificity was high for all definitions (range 93.1% [95% CI 91.4%-94.7%] to 99.4% [95% CI 99.0%-99.8%]). Positive predictive values and negative predictive values also showed high accuracy of the manual CPCSSN record review relative to review of the raw chart data. INTERPRETATION: The use of CPCSSN records as the reference standard to validate case definitions substantially reduces the burden on sentinel physicians and clinic managers as well as on researchers while offering a reference standard that is a reasonable substitution for chart review. Copyright 2017, Joule Inc. or its licensors.
Authors: Tyler Williamson; Michael E Green; Richard Birtwhistle; Shahriar Khan; Stephanie Garies; Sabrina T Wong; Nandini Natarajan; Donna Manca; Neil Drummond Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: John A Queenan; Tyler Williamson; Shahriar Khan; Neil Drummond; Stephanie Garies; Rachael Morkem; Richard Birtwhistle Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2016-01-25
Authors: Vera E Valkhoff; Preciosa M Coloma; Gwen M C Masclee; Rosa Gini; Francesco Innocenti; Francesco Lapi; Mariam Molokhia; Mees Mosseveld; Malene Schou Nielsson; Martijn Schuemie; Frantz Thiessard; Johan van der Lei; Miriam C J M Sturkenboom; Gianluca Trifirò Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2014-05-01 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Kevin L Schwartz; Karen Tu; Laura Wing; Michael A Campitelli; Natasha S Crowcroft; Shelley L Deeks; Sarah E Wilson; Kumanan Wilson; Ian Gemmill; Jeffrey C Kwong Journal: Hum Vaccin Immunother Date: 2015 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Ann John; Joanne McGregor; David Fone; Frank Dunstan; Rosie Cornish; Ronan A Lyons; Keith R Lloyd Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2016-03-15 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Chiamaka L Okorie; Elise Gatsby; Florian R Schroeck; A Aziz Ould Ismail; Kristine E Lynch Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-05-13 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Sue Ross; Hilary Fast; Stephanie Garies; Deb Slade; Dave Jackson; Meghan Doraty; Rebecca Miyagishima; Boglarka Soos; Matt Taylor; Tyler Williamson; Neil Drummond Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2020-05-28
Authors: Rohit Vijh; Sabrina T Wong; Matthew Grandy; Sandra Peterson; Allison M Ezzat; Andrew G Gibb; Nathaniel M Hawkins Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2021-04-16