Max T Wayne1, Thomas S Valley2,3, Colin R Cooke2,3, Michael W Sjoding2,3,4. 1. 1 Department of Internal Medicine. 2. 2 Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine. 3. 3 Institute for Healthcare Policy & Innovation, and. 4. 4 Center for Computational Medicine and Bioinformatics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) results in substantial mortality but remains underdiagnosed in clinical practice. Automated ARDS "sniffer" systems, tools that can automatically analyze electronic medical record data, have been developed to improve recognition of ARDS in clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: To perform a systematic review examining the evidence underlying automated sniffer systems for ARDS detection. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and Scopus databases through November 2018 to identify studies of tools using routinely available clinical data to detect patients with ARDS. DATA EXTRACTION: Study design, tool description, and diagnostic performance were extracted by two reviewers. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 was used to evaluate each study for risk of bias in four domains: patient selection, index test, reference standard, and study flow and timing. SYNTHESIS: Among 480 studies identified, 9 met inclusion criteria, and they evaluated six unique ARDS sniffer tools. Eight studies had derivation and/or temporal validation designs, with one also evaluating the effects of implementing a tool in clinical practice. A single study performed an external validation of previously published ARDS sniffer tools. Studies reported a wide range of sensitivities (43-98%) and positive predictive values (26-90%) for detection of ARDS. Most studies had potential for high risk of bias identified in their study design, including patient selection (five of nine), reference standard (four of nine), and flow and timing (three of nine). In the single external validation without any perceived risks of biases, the performance of ARDS sniffer tools was worse. CONCLUSIONS: Sniffer systems developed to detect ARDS had moderate to high predictive value in their derivation cohorts, although most studies had the potential for high risks of bias in study design. Methodological issues may explain some of the variability in tool performance. There remains an ongoing need for robust evaluation of ARDS sniffer systems and their impact on clinical practice. Systematic review registered with PROSPERO (CRD42015026584).
BACKGROUND: The acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) results in substantial mortality but remains underdiagnosed in clinical practice. Automated ARDS "sniffer" systems, tools that can automatically analyze electronic medical record data, have been developed to improve recognition of ARDS in clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: To perform a systematic review examining the evidence underlying automated sniffer systems for ARDS detection. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and Scopus databases through November 2018 to identify studies of tools using routinely available clinical data to detect patients with ARDS. DATA EXTRACTION: Study design, tool description, and diagnostic performance were extracted by two reviewers. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 was used to evaluate each study for risk of bias in four domains: patient selection, index test, reference standard, and study flow and timing. SYNTHESIS: Among 480 studies identified, 9 met inclusion criteria, and they evaluated six unique ARDS sniffer tools. Eight studies had derivation and/or temporal validation designs, with one also evaluating the effects of implementing a tool in clinical practice. A single study performed an external validation of previously published ARDS sniffer tools. Studies reported a wide range of sensitivities (43-98%) and positive predictive values (26-90%) for detection of ARDS. Most studies had potential for high risk of bias identified in their study design, including patient selection (five of nine), reference standard (four of nine), and flow and timing (three of nine). In the single external validation without any perceived risks of biases, the performance of ARDS sniffer tools was worse. CONCLUSIONS: Sniffer systems developed to detect ARDS had moderate to high predictive value in their derivation cohorts, although most studies had the potential for high risks of bias in study design. Methodological issues may explain some of the variability in tool performance. There remains an ongoing need for robust evaluation of ARDS sniffer systems and their impact on clinical practice. Systematic review registered with PROSPERO (CRD42015026584).
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Giacomo Bellani; John G Laffey; Tài Pham; Eddy Fan; Laurent Brochard; Andres Esteban; Luciano Gattinoni; Frank van Haren; Anders Larsson; Daniel F McAuley; Marco Ranieri; Gordon Rubenfeld; B Taylor Thompson; Hermann Wrigge; Arthur S Slutsky; Antonio Pesenti Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Shashank S Sinha; Michael W Sjoding; Devraj Sukul; Hallie C Prescott; Theodore J Iwashyna; Hitinder S Gurm; Colin R Cooke; Brahmajee K Nallamothu Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2017-08
Authors: Gordon D Rubenfeld; Ellen Caldwell; Eve Peabody; Jim Weaver; Diane P Martin; Margaret Neff; Eric J Stern; Leonard D Hudson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-10-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Anne W S Rutjes; Johannes B Reitsma; Marcello Di Nisio; Nynke Smidt; Jeroen C van Rijn; Patrick M M Bossuyt Journal: CMAJ Date: 2006-02-14 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Kathryn A Artis; Raed A Dweik; Bela Patel; Curtis H Weiss; Kevin C Wilson; Anna R Gagliardi; Sue Huckson; Monika Nothacker; Neill K J Adhikari; Andre Carlos Kajdacsy-Balla Amaral; Ian J Barbash; W Graham Carlos; Deena Kelly Costa; Mark L Metersky; Richard A Mularski; Michael W Sjoding; Carey C Thomson; Robert C Hyzy Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2019-12
Authors: Gregory B Rehm; Irene Cortés-Puch; Brooks T Kuhn; Jimmy Nguyen; Sarina A Fazio; Michael A Johnson; Nicholas R Anderson; Chen-Nee Chuah; Jason Y Adams Journal: Crit Care Explor Date: 2021-01-08
Authors: Andrew J Knighton; Kathryn G Kuttler; Pallavi Ranade-Kharkar; Lauren Allen; Taylor Throne; Jason R Jacobs; Lori Carpenter; Carrie Winberg; Kyle Johnson; Neer Shrestha; Jeffrey P Ferraro; Doug Wolfe; Ithan D Peltan; Rajendu Srivastava; Colin K Grissom Journal: JAMIA Open Date: 2022-07-08