Kerry A McBrien1,2, Sepideh Souri2, Nicola E Symonds3, Azin Rouhi4, Brendan C Lethebe2, Tyler S Williamson2, Stephanie Garies1,2, Richard Birtwhistle5, Hude Quan2, Gabriel E Fabreau2,6, Paul E Ronksley2. 1. Department of Family Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada. 2. Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada. 3. Faculty of Science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. 4. Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. 5. Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada. 6. Department of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
Abstract
Objectives: Data derived from primary care electronic medical records (EMRs) are being used for research and surveillance. Case definitions are required to identify patients with specific conditions in EMR data with a degree of accuracy. The purpose of this study is to identify and provide a summary of case definitions that have been validated in primary care EMR data. Materials and Methods: We searched MEDLINE and Embase (from inception to June 2016) to identify studies that describe case definitions for clinical conditions in EMR data and report on the performance metrics of these definitions. Results: We identified 40 studies reporting on case definitions for 47 unique clinical conditions. The studies used combinations of International Classification of Disease version 9 (ICD-9) codes, Read codes, laboratory values, and medications in their algorithms. The most common validation metric reported was positive predictive value, with inconsistent reporting of sensitivity and specificity. Discussion: This review describes validated case definitions derived in primary care EMR data, which can be used to understand disease patterns and prevalence among primary care populations. Limitations include incomplete reporting of performance metrics and uncertainty regarding performance of case definitions across different EMR databases and countries. Conclusion: Our review found a significant number of validated case definitions with good performance for use in primary care EMR data. These could be applied to other EMR databases in similar contexts and may enable better disease surveillance when using clinical EMR data. Consistent reporting across validation studies using EMR data would facilitate comparison across studies. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42016040020 (submitted June 8, 2016, and last revised June 14, 2016).
Objectives: Data derived from primary care electronic medical records (EMRs) are being used for research and surveillance. Case definitions are required to identify patients with specific conditions in EMR data with a degree of accuracy. The purpose of this study is to identify and provide a summary of case definitions that have been validated in primary care EMR data. Materials and Methods: We searched MEDLINE and Embase (from inception to June 2016) to identify studies that describe case definitions for clinical conditions in EMR data and report on the performance metrics of these definitions. Results: We identified 40 studies reporting on case definitions for 47 unique clinical conditions. The studies used combinations of International Classification of Disease version 9 (ICD-9) codes, Read codes, laboratory values, and medications in their algorithms. The most common validation metric reported was positive predictive value, with inconsistent reporting of sensitivity and specificity. Discussion: This review describes validated case definitions derived in primary care EMR data, which can be used to understand disease patterns and prevalence among primary care populations. Limitations include incomplete reporting of performance metrics and uncertainty regarding performance of case definitions across different EMR databases and countries. Conclusion: Our review found a significant number of validated case definitions with good performance for use in primary care EMR data. These could be applied to other EMR databases in similar contexts and may enable better disease surveillance when using clinical EMR data. Consistent reporting across validation studies using EMR data would facilitate comparison across studies. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42016040020 (submitted June 8, 2016, and last revised June 14, 2016).
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: Robert W Voss; Teresa D Schmidt; Nicole Weiskopf; Miguel Marino; David A Dorr; Nathalie Huguet; Nate Warren; Steele Valenzuela; Jean O'Malley; Ana R Quiñones Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2022-04-13 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Ifedioranma Anikpo; Afiba Manza-A Agovi; Matthew J Cvitanovich; Frank Lonergan; Marc Johnson; Rohit P Ojha Journal: HIV Med Date: 2021-08-19 Impact factor: 3.094