Kari R Gillmeyer1, Ming-Ming Lee2, Alissa P Link3, Elizabeth S Klings2, Seppo T Rinne4, Renda Soylemez Wiener4. 1. The Pulmonary Center, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA. Electronic address: Kari.Gillmeyer@bmc.org. 2. The Pulmonary Center, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA. 3. Alumni Medical Library, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA. 4. The Pulmonary Center, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA; Center for Healthcare Organization & Implementation Research, Edith Nourse Rogers Veterans Hospital, Bedford, MA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is challenging, and there is significant overlap with the more heterogenous diagnosis of pulmonary hypertension (PH). Clinical and research efforts that rely on administrative data are limited by current coding systems that do not adequately reflect the clinical classification scheme. The aim of this systematic review is to investigate current algorithms to detect PAH using administrative data and to appraise the diagnostic accuracy of these algorithms against a reference standard. METHODS: We conducted comprehensive searches of Medline, Embase, and Web of Science from their inception. We included English-language articles that applied an algorithm to an administrative or electronic health record database to identify PAH in adults. RESULTS: Of 2,669 unique citations identified, 32 studies met all inclusion criteria. Only four of these studies validated their algorithm against a reference standard. Algorithms varied widely, ranging from single International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes to combinations of visit, procedure, and pharmacy codes. ICD codes alone performed poorly, with positive predictive values ranging from 3.3% to 66.7%. The addition of PAH-specific therapy and diagnostic procedures to the algorithm improved the diagnostic accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: Algorithms to identify PAH in administrative databases vary widely, and few are validated. The sole use of ICD codes performs poorly, potentially leading to biased results. ICD codes should be revised to better discriminate between PH groups, and universally accepted algorithms need to be developed and validated to capture PAH in administrative data, better informing research and clinical efforts.
BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is challenging, and there is significant overlap with the more heterogenous diagnosis of pulmonary hypertension (PH). Clinical and research efforts that rely on administrative data are limited by current coding systems that do not adequately reflect the clinical classification scheme. The aim of this systematic review is to investigate current algorithms to detect PAH using administrative data and to appraise the diagnostic accuracy of these algorithms against a reference standard. METHODS: We conducted comprehensive searches of Medline, Embase, and Web of Science from their inception. We included English-language articles that applied an algorithm to an administrative or electronic health record database to identify PAH in adults. RESULTS: Of 2,669 unique citations identified, 32 studies met all inclusion criteria. Only four of these studies validated their algorithm against a reference standard. Algorithms varied widely, ranging from single International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes to combinations of visit, procedure, and pharmacy codes. ICD codes alone performed poorly, with positive predictive values ranging from 3.3% to 66.7%. The addition of PAH-specific therapy and diagnostic procedures to the algorithm improved the diagnostic accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: Algorithms to identify PAH in administrative databases vary widely, and few are validated. The sole use of ICD codes performs poorly, potentially leading to biased results. ICD codes should be revised to better discriminate between PH groups, and universally accepted algorithms need to be developed and validated to capture PAH in administrative data, better informing research and clinical efforts.
Authors: Eric I Benchimol; Douglas G Manuel; Teresa To; Anne M Griffiths; Linda Rabeneck; Astrid Guttmann Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2010-12-30 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Gerald Simonneau; Michael A Gatzoulis; Ian Adatia; David Celermajer; Chris Denton; Ardeschir Ghofrani; Miguel Angel Gomez Sanchez; R Krishna Kumar; Michael Landzberg; Roberto F Machado; Horst Olschewski; Ivan M Robbins; Rogiero Souza Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-12-24 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: D Thiwanka Wijeratne; Katherine Lajkosz; Susan B Brogly; M Diane Lougheed; Li Jiang; Ahmad Housin; David Barber; Ana Johnson; Katharine M Doliszny; Stephen L Archer Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2018-02
Authors: Melinda Carrington; Niamh F Murphy; Geoff Strange; Andrew Peacock; John J V McMurray; Simon Stewart Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2007-04-11 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Patrick M Bossuyt; Johannes B Reitsma; David E Bruns; Constantine A Gatsonis; Paul P Glasziou; Les M Irwig; Jeroen G Lijmer; David Moher; Drummond Rennie; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: BMJ Date: 2003-01-04
Authors: Kari R Gillmeyer; Ming-Ming Lee; Alissa P Link; Elizabeth S Klings; Seppo T Rinne; Renda Soylemez Wiener Journal: Chest Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Hongyang Pi; Chad M Kosanovich; Adam Handen; Michael Tao; Jacqueline Visina; Gabrielle Vanspeybroeck; Marc A Simon; Michael G Risbano; Aken Desai; Michael A Mathier; Belinda N Rivera-Lebron; Quyen Nguyen; Jennifer Kliner; Mehdi Nouraie; Stephen Y Chan Journal: Chest Date: 2020-02-25 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Lia N Pizzicato; Vijay R Nadipelli; Samuel Governor; Jianbin Mao; Stephan Lanes; John Butler; Rebecca S Pepe; Hemant Phatak; Karim El-Kersh Journal: Pulm Circ Date: 2022-06-08 Impact factor: 2.886
Authors: Kyle P Schuler; Anna R Hemnes; Jeffrey Annis; Eric Farber-Eger; Brandon D Lowery; Stephen J Halliday; Evan L Brittain Journal: Respir Res Date: 2022-05-28
Authors: Kari R Gillmeyer; Eduardo R Nunez; Seppo T Rinne; Shirley X Qian; Elizabeth S Klings; Renda Soylemez Wiener Journal: Chest Date: 2020-12-17 Impact factor: 9.410