Jason L Vassy1, Yuk-Lam Ho2, Jacqueline Honerlaw2, Kelly Cho3, J Michael Gaziano3, Peter W F Wilson4, David R Gagnon5. 1. VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA; Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: jvassy@partners.org. 2. VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA. 3. VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA; Division of Aging, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Atlanta VA Medical Center, Atlanta, GA, USA; Emory University Schools of Medicine and Public Health, Atlanta, GA, USA. 5. VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA; Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
AIMS: Despite growing interest in using electronic health records (EHR) to create longitudinal cohort studies, the distribution and missingness of EHR data might introduce selection bias and information bias to such analyses. We aimed to examine the yield and potential for these healthcare process biases in defining a study baseline using EHR data, using the example of cholesterol and blood pressure (BP) measurements. METHODS: We created a virtual cohort study of cardiovascular disease (CVD) from patients with eligible cholesterol profiles in the New England (NE) and Southeast (SE) networks of the Veterans Health Administration in the United States. Using clinical data from the EHR, we plotted the yield of patients with BP measurements within an expanding timeframe around an index date of cholesterol testing. We compared three groups: (1) patients with BP from the exact index date; (2) patients with BP not on the index date but within the network-specific 90th percentile around the index date; and (3) patients with no BP within the network-specific 90th percentile. RESULTS: Among 589,361 total patients in the two networks, 146,636 (61.0%) of 240,479 patients from NE and 289,906 (83.1%) of 348,882 patients from SE had BP measurements on the index date. Ninety percent had BP measured within 11 days of the index date in NE and within 5 days of the index date in SE. Group 3 in both networks had fewer available race data, fewer comorbidities and CVD medications, and fewer health system encounters. CONCLUSIONS: Requiring same-day risk factor measurement in the creation of a virtual CVD cohort study from EHR data might exclude 40% of eligible patients, but including patients with infrequent visits might introduce bias. Data visualization can inform study-specific strategies to address these challenges for the research use of EHR data. Published by Elsevier Inc.
AIMS: Despite growing interest in using electronic health records (EHR) to create longitudinal cohort studies, the distribution and missingness of EHR data might introduce selection bias and information bias to such analyses. We aimed to examine the yield and potential for these healthcare process biases in defining a study baseline using EHR data, using the example of cholesterol and blood pressure (BP) measurements. METHODS: We created a virtual cohort study of cardiovascular disease (CVD) from patients with eligible cholesterol profiles in the New England (NE) and Southeast (SE) networks of the Veterans Health Administration in the United States. Using clinical data from the EHR, we plotted the yield of patients with BP measurements within an expanding timeframe around an index date of cholesterol testing. We compared three groups: (1) patients with BP from the exact index date; (2) patients with BP not on the index date but within the network-specific 90th percentile around the index date; and (3) patients with no BP within the network-specific 90th percentile. RESULTS: Among 589,361 total patients in the two networks, 146,636 (61.0%) of 240,479 patients from NE and 289,906 (83.1%) of 348,882 patients from SE had BP measurements on the index date. Ninety percent had BP measured within 11 days of the index date in NE and within 5 days of the index date in SE. Group 3 in both networks had fewer available race data, fewer comorbidities and CVD medications, and fewer health system encounters. CONCLUSIONS: Requiring same-day risk factor measurement in the creation of a virtual CVD cohort study from EHR data might exclude 40% of eligible patients, but including patients with infrequent visits might introduce bias. Data visualization can inform study-specific strategies to address these challenges for the research use of EHR data. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cardiovascular disease; Clinical research informatics; Data completeness; Data visualization; Secondary use
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: William R Hersh; Mark G Weiner; Peter J Embi; Judith R Logan; Philip R O Payne; Elmer V Bernstam; Harold P Lehmann; George Hripcsak; Timothy H Hartzog; James J Cimino; Joel H Saltz Journal: Med Care Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Felix Köpcke; Dorota Lubgan; Rainer Fietkau; Axel Scholler; Carla Nau; Michael Stürzl; Roland Croner; Hans-Ulrich Prokosch; Dennis Toddenroth Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2013-12-09 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Ariela R Orkaby; Lisa Nussbaum; Yuk-Lam Ho; David Gagnon; Lien Quach; Rachel Ward; Rachel Quaden; Enzo Yaksic; Kelly Harrington; Julie M Paik; Dae H Kim; Peter W Wilson; J Michael Gaziano; Luc Djousse; Kelly Cho; Jane A Driver Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2019-07-12 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Nam Pho; Arjun K Manrai; John T Leppert; Glenn M Chertow; John P A Ioannidis; Chirag J Patel Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2021-03-01 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Zhe He; Jiang Bian; Henry J Carretta; Jiwon Lee; William R Hogan; Elizabeth Shenkman; Neil Charness Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2018-04-12 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Jason L Vassy; Bing Lu; Yuk-Lam Ho; Ashley Galloway; Sridharan Raghavan; Jacqueline Honerlaw; Laura Tarko; John Russo; Saadia Qazi; Ariela R Orkaby; Vidisha Tanukonda; Luc Djousse; J Michael Gaziano; David R Gagnon; Kelly Cho; Peter W F Wilson Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2020-07-01
Authors: E Hope Weissler; Tristan Naumann; Tomas Andersson; Rajesh Ranganath; Olivier Elemento; Yuan Luo; Daniel F Freitag; James Benoit; Michael C Hughes; Faisal Khan; Paul Slater; Khader Shameer; Matthew Roe; Emmette Hutchison; Scott H Kollins; Uli Broedl; Zhaoling Meng; Jennifer L Wong; Lesley Curtis; Erich Huang; Marzyeh Ghassemi Journal: Trials Date: 2021-08-16 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Sridharan Raghavan; Yuk-Lam Ho; Jason L Vassy; Daniel Posner; Jacqueline Honerlaw; Lauren Costa; Lawrence S Phillips; David R Gagnon; Peter W F Wilson; Kelly Cho Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2020-08-31
Authors: Liam Gaziano; Kelly Cho; Luc Djousse; Petra Schubert; Ashley Galloway; Yuk-Lam Ho; Katherine Kurgansky; David R Gagnon; John P Russo; Emanuele Di Angelantonio; Angela M Wood; John Danesh; John Michael Gaziano; Adam S Butterworth; Peter W F Wilson; Jacob Joseph Journal: ESC Heart Fail Date: 2021-09-16