Celeste D Bickford1, Tim F Oberlander2,3,4, Nancy E Lanphear2,3, Whitney M Weikum2,3, Patricia A Janssen1,4, Helene Ouellette-Kuntz5, Gillian E Hanley4,6. 1. School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 2. Department of Pediatrics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 3. Sunny Hill Health Centre for Children, BC Children's Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 4. BC Children's Hospital Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 5. Department of Public Health Sciences, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. 6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Abstract
Administrative data are frequently used to identify Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) cases in epidemiological studies. However, validation studies on this mode of case ascertainment have lacked access to high-quality clinical diagnostic data and have not followed published reporting guidelines. We report on the diagnostic accuracy of using readily available health administrative data for pediatric ASD case ascertainment. The validation cohort included almost all the ASD-positive children born in British Columbia, Canada from April 1, 2000 to December 31, 2009 and consisted of 8,670 children in total. 4,079 ASD-positive and 2,787 ASD-negative children were identified using Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) and Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised (ADI-R) assessments done through the British Columbia Autism Assessment Network (BCAAN). An additional 1,804 ADOS/ADI-R assessed ASD-positive children were identified using Ministry of Education records. This prospectively collected clinical data (the diagnostic gold standard) was then linked to each child's physician billing and hospital discharge data. The diagnostic accuracy of 11 algorithms that used the administrative data to assign ASD case status was assessed. For all algorithms, high positive predictive values (PPVs) were observed alongside low values for other measures of diagnostic accuracy illustrating that PPVs alone are not an adequate measure of diagnostic accuracy. We show that British Columbia's health administrative data cannot reliably be used to discriminate between children with ASD and children with other developmental disorders. Utilizing these data may result in misclassification bias. Methodologically sound, region-specific validation studies are needed to support the use of administrative data for ASD case ascertainment. Autism Res 2020, 13: 456-463.
Administrative data are frequently used to identify Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) cases in epidemiological studies. However, validation studies on this mode of case ascertainment have lacked access to high-quality clinical diagnostic data and have not followed published reporting guidelines. We report on the diagnostic accuracy of using readily available health administrative data for pediatric ASD case ascertainment. The validation cohort included almost all the ASD-positive children born in British Columbia, Canada from April 1, 2000 to December 31, 2009 and consisted of 8,670 children in total. 4,079 ASD-positive and 2,787 ASD-negative children were identified using Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) and Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised (ADI-R) assessments done through the British Columbia Autism Assessment Network (BCAAN). An additional 1,804 ADOS/ADI-R assessed ASD-positive children were identified using Ministry of Education records. This prospectively collected clinical data (the diagnostic gold standard) was then linked to each child's physician billing and hospital discharge data. The diagnostic accuracy of 11 algorithms that used the administrative data to assign ASD case status was assessed. For all algorithms, high positive predictive values (PPVs) were observed alongside low values for other measures of diagnostic accuracy illustrating that PPVs alone are not an adequate measure of diagnostic accuracy. We show that British Columbia's health administrative data cannot reliably be used to discriminate between children with ASD and children with other developmental disorders. Utilizing these data may result in misclassification bias. Methodologically sound, region-specific validation studies are needed to support the use of administrative data for ASD case ascertainment. Autism Res 2020, 13: 456-463.
Authors: Scott D Grosse; Phyllis Nichols; Kwame Nyarko; Matthew Maenner; Melissa L Danielson; Lindsay Shea Journal: J Autism Dev Disord Date: 2021-09-28
Authors: Joanna Weronika Król; Paweł Jan Stanirowski; Natalia Mazanowska; Agata Majewska; Mirosław Wielgoś; Dorota Bomba-Opoń Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-06-12 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Malia S Q Murphy; Robin Ducharme; Steven Hawken; Daniel J Corsi; William Petrcich; Darine El-Chaâr; Lise Bisnaire; Daniel I McIsaac; Deshayne B Fell; Shi Wu Wen; Mark C Walker Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2022-05-02
Authors: Jennifer D Brooks; Jasleen Arneja; Longdi Fu; Farah E Saxena; Karen Tu; Virgiliu Bogdan Pinzaru; Evdokia Anagnostou; Kirk Nylen; Natasha R Saunders; Hong Lu; John McLaughlin; Susan E Bronskill Journal: Autism Res Date: 2021-03-10 Impact factor: 5.216