Brittany L Baldwin-Hunter1, Rita M Knotts2, Samantha D Leeds1, Joel H Rubenstein3,4, Charles J Lightdale1, Julian A Abrams5. 1. Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases, Columbia University Medical Center, 630 W 168th Street, P&S 3-401, New York, NY, 10032, USA. 2. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, New York University School of Medicine, 240 East 38th Street, 23rd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, USA. 3. Veterans Affairs Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 4. Barrett's Esophagus Program, Division of Gastroenterology, University of Michigan, Taubman Center, Floor 3 Reception D, 1500 E Medical Center Dr SPC 2435, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-2435, USA. 5. Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases, Columbia University Medical Center, 630 W 168th Street, P&S 3-401, New York, NY, 10032, USA. ja660@cumc.columbia.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical prediction models targeting patients for Barrett's esophagus (BE) screening include data obtained by interview, questionnaire, and body measurements. A tool based on electronic health records (EHR) data could reduce cost and enhance usability, particularly if combined with non-endoscopic BE screening methods. AIMS: To determine whether EHR-based data can identify BE patients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients ages 50-75 who underwent a first-time esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Data extracted from the EHR included demographics and BE risk factors. Endoscopy and pathology reports were reviewed for histologically confirmed BE. Screening criteria modified from clinical guidelines were assessed for association with BE. Subsequently, a score based on multivariate logistic regression was developed and assessed for its ability to identify BE subjects. RESULTS: A total of 2931 patients were assessed, and BE was found in 1.9%. Subjects who met screening criteria were more likely to have BE (3.3% vs. 1.1%, p = 0.001), and the criteria predicted BE with an AUROC of 0.65 (95% CI 0.59-0.71). A score based on logistic regression modeling included gastroesophageal reflux disease, sex, body mass index, and ever-smoker status and identified BE subjects with an AUROC of 0.71 (95% CI 0.64-0.77). Both prediction tools produced higher AUROCs in women than in men. CONCLUSIONS: EHR-based BE risk prediction tools identify BE patients with fair accuracy. While these tools may improve the efficiency of patient targeting for BE screening in the primary care setting, challenges remain to identify high-risk patients for non-invasive BE screening in clinical practice.
BACKGROUND: Clinical prediction models targeting patients for Barrett's esophagus (BE) screening include data obtained by interview, questionnaire, and body measurements. A tool based on electronic health records (EHR) data could reduce cost and enhance usability, particularly if combined with non-endoscopic BE screening methods. AIMS: To determine whether EHR-based data can identify BE patients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients ages 50-75 who underwent a first-time esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Data extracted from the EHR included demographics and BE risk factors. Endoscopy and pathology reports were reviewed for histologically confirmed BE. Screening criteria modified from clinical guidelines were assessed for association with BE. Subsequently, a score based on multivariate logistic regression was developed and assessed for its ability to identify BE subjects. RESULTS: A total of 2931 patients were assessed, and BE was found in 1.9%. Subjects who met screening criteria were more likely to have BE (3.3% vs. 1.1%, p = 0.001), and the criteria predicted BE with an AUROC of 0.65 (95% CI 0.59-0.71). A score based on logistic regression modeling included gastroesophageal reflux disease, sex, body mass index, and ever-smoker status and identified BE subjects with an AUROC of 0.71 (95% CI 0.64-0.77). Both prediction tools produced higher AUROCs in women than in men. CONCLUSIONS: EHR-based BE risk prediction tools identify BE patients with fair accuracy. While these tools may improve the efficiency of patient targeting for BE screening in the primary care setting, challenges remain to identify high-risk patients for non-invasive BE screening in clinical practice.
Authors: Hashem B El-Serag; Aanand D Naik; Zhigang Duan; Mohammad Shakhatreh; Ashley Helm; Amita Pathak; Marilyn Hinojosa-Lindsey; Jason Hou; Theresa Nguyen; John Chen; Jennifer R Kramer Journal: Gut Date: 2015-08-26 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Romy E Verbeek; Max Leenders; Fiebo J W Ten Kate; Richard van Hillegersberg; Frank P Vleggaar; Jantine W P M van Baal; Martijn G H van Oijen; Peter D Siersema Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-07-01 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Angela C Tramontano; Deirdre F Sheehan; Jennifer M Yeh; Chung Yin Kong; Emily C Dowling; Joel H Rubenstein; Julian A Abrams; John M Inadomi; Deborah Schrag; Chin Hur Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2017-04-04 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Nicholas J Shaheen; Prateek Sharma; Bergein F Overholt; Herbert C Wolfsen; Richard E Sampliner; Kenneth K Wang; Joseph A Galanko; Mary P Bronner; John R Goldblum; Ana E Bennett; Blair A Jobe; Glenn M Eisen; M Brian Fennerty; John G Hunter; David E Fleischer; Virender K Sharma; Robert H Hawes; Brenda J Hoffman; Richard I Rothstein; Stuart R Gordon; Hiroshi Mashimo; Kenneth J Chang; V Raman Muthusamy; Steven A Edmundowicz; Stuart J Spechler; Ali A Siddiqui; Rhonda F Souza; Anthony Infantolino; Gary W Falk; Michael B Kimmey; Ryan D Madanick; Amitabh Chak; Charles J Lightdale Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-05-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: K Nadine Phoa; Frederike G I van Vilsteren; Bas L A M Weusten; Raf Bisschops; Erik J Schoon; Krish Ragunath; Grant Fullarton; Massimiliano Di Pietro; Narayanasamy Ravi; Mike Visser; G Johan Offerhaus; Cees A Seldenrijk; Sybren L Meijer; Fiebo J W ten Kate; Jan G P Tijssen; Jacques J G H M Bergman Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-03-26 Impact factor: 56.272