Amy Z Sun1, Yu-Hsiang Shu2, Teresa N Harrison2, Aviv Hever3, Steven J Jacobsen2, Michelle M O'Shaughnessy4, John J Sim1. 1. Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Los Angeles Medical Center, CA. 2. Department of Research and Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, CA. 3. Department of Renal Pathology, Los Angeles Medical Center, CA. 4. Department of Nephrology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Developing a reliable means to identify and study real-world populations of patients with membranous nephropathy (MN) using electronic health records (EHRs) would help advance glomerular disease research. Identifying MN cases using EHRs is limited by the need for manual reviews of biopsy reports. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of identifying patients with biopsy-proven MN using the EHR in a large, diverse population of an integrated health system. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed between June 28, 1999, and June 25, 2015, among patients with kidney biopsy results (N = 4723), which were manually reviewed and designated as MN or non-MN. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) of International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) diagnosis codes were determined using 2 approaches: 1) clinical (MN-specific codes 581.1, 582.1, or 583.1) and 2) agnostic/data-derived (codes selected from supervised learning at the highest predictive performance). RESULTS: One year after biopsy, the sensitivity and specificity of an MN diagnosis were 86% and 76%, respectively, but the PPV was 26%. The data-driven approach detected that using only 2 codes (581.1 or 583.1) improved specificity to 94% and PPV to 58%, with a small decrease in sensitivity to 83%. When any code was reported at least 3 times, specificity was 98%; PPV, 78%; and sensitivity, 64%. DISCUSSION: Our findings suggest that ICD-9 diagnosis codes might be a convenient tool to identify patients with MN using EHR and/or administrative claims information. Codes selected from supervised learning achieved better overall performance, suggesting the potential of developing data-driven methods.
INTRODUCTION: Developing a reliable means to identify and study real-world populations of patients with membranous nephropathy (MN) using electronic health records (EHRs) would help advance glomerular disease research. Identifying MN cases using EHRs is limited by the need for manual reviews of biopsy reports. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of identifying patients with biopsy-proven MN using the EHR in a large, diverse population of an integrated health system. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed between June 28, 1999, and June 25, 2015, among patients with kidney biopsy results (N = 4723), which were manually reviewed and designated as MN or non-MN. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) of International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) diagnosis codes were determined using 2 approaches: 1) clinical (MN-specific codes 581.1, 582.1, or 583.1) and 2) agnostic/data-derived (codes selected from supervised learning at the highest predictive performance). RESULTS: One year after biopsy, the sensitivity and specificity of an MN diagnosis were 86% and 76%, respectively, but the PPV was 26%. The data-driven approach detected that using only 2 codes (581.1 or 583.1) improved specificity to 94% and PPV to 58%, with a small decrease in sensitivity to 83%. When any code was reported at least 3 times, specificity was 98%; PPV, 78%; and sensitivity, 64%. DISCUSSION: Our findings suggest that ICD-9 diagnosis codes might be a convenient tool to identify patients with MN using EHR and/or administrative claims information. Codes selected from supervised learning achieved better overall performance, suggesting the potential of developing data-driven methods.
Authors: Michelle M O'Shaughnessy; XingXing S Cheng; Maria E Montez-Rath; Richard A Lafayette; Wolfgang C Winkelmayer Journal: Clin Nephrol Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 0.975
Authors: Kim N Danforth; Erin E Hahn; Jeffrey M Slezak; Lie Hong Chen; Bonnie H Li; Corrine E Munoz-Plaza; Tiffany Q Luong; Teresa N Harrison; Brian S Mittman; John J Sim; Hardeep Singh; Michael H Kanter Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2019-07-16 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: John J Sim; Mark P Rutkowski; David C Selevan; Michael Batech; Royann Timmins; Jeff M Slezak; Steven J Jacobsen; Michael H Kanter Journal: Am J Med Date: 2015-06-16 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: John J Sim; Simran K Bhandari; Michael Batech; Aviv Hever; Teresa N Harrison; Yu-Hsiang Shu; Dean A Kujubu; Tracy Y Jonelis; Michael H Kanter; Steven J Jacobsen Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2018-01-24 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: Laurence H Beck; Ramon G B Bonegio; Gérard Lambeau; David M Beck; David W Powell; Timothy D Cummins; Jon B Klein; David J Salant Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-07-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Marva M Moxey-Mims; Michael F Flessner; Lawrence Holzman; Frederick Kaskel; John R Sedor; William E Smoyer; Aliza M Thompson; Lynne Yao Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2016-09-26 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Michelle M O'Shaughnessy; Susan L Hogan; Bawana D Thompson; Rosanna Coppo; Agnes B Fogo; J Charles Jennette Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2018-04-01 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: John J Sim; Hui Zhou; Simran Bhandari; Rong Wei; Jeff W Brettler; Jocelyn Tran-Nguyen; Joel Handler; Daichi Shimbo; Steven J Jacobsen; Kristi Reynolds Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2018-08-23 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Svenja Ney; Peter Ihle; Thomas Ruhnke; Christian Günster; Guido Michels; Katharina Seuthe; Martin Hellmich; Roman Pfister Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2022-10-14 Impact factor: 6.138
Authors: Matthew T Patrick; Redina Bardhi; Wei Zhou; James T Elder; Johann E Gudjonsson; Lam C Tsoi Journal: Genome Med Date: 2022-08-09 Impact factor: 15.266
Authors: Alan S Go; Thida C Tan; Glenn M Chertow; Juan D Ordonez; Dongjie Fan; David Law; Leonid Yankulin; Janet M Wojcicki; Sijie Zheng; Kenneth K Chen; Farzien Khoshniat-Rad; Jingrong Yang; Rishi V Parikh Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2021-06-18 Impact factor: 14.978