Kathleen A McGinnis1, Amy C Justice1,2,3, Sam Bailin4, Melissa Wellons4, Matthew Freiberg4,5, John R Koethe4,5. 1. Veterans Affairs Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, Connecticut, USA. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA. 3. School of Public Health, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA. 5. Veterans Affairs Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Electronic medical records (EMR) represent a rich source of data, but the value of EMR for health research relies on accurate ascertainment of clinical diagnoses. Identifying diabetes in EMR is complicated by the variety of accepted diagnostic criteria, some of which can be confounded by conditions such as HIV infection. We compared EMR-based criteria for estimating diabetes prevalence and incidence in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), overall and by HIV status, against physician chart review and adjudication. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We used laboratory values (serum glucose and hemoglobin A1c% [HbA1c]), ICD-9 codes, and medication records from the United States Veterans Aging Cohort Study Biomarker Cohort to identify veterans with any indication of diabetes in the EMR for subsequent physician adjudication. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and kappa statistics were used to evaluate agreement of EMR-based diabetes diagnoses with chart review adjudicated diagnoses. RESULTS: EMR entries were reviewed for 1546 persons with HIV (PWH) and 843 HIV-negative participants through 2015. Agreement was at least moderate overall (kappa ≥ 0.42) for all pre-specified measures and among PWH vs HIV-negative, and African-American vs white sub-groups. Having at least one HbA1c ≥6.5% provided substantial agreement with chart adjudication for prevalent and incident diabetes (kappa = 0.89 and 0.73). CONCLUSIONS: Identification of those with diabetes nationally within the VHA can be used in future studies to evaluate treatments, health outcomes, and adjust for diabetes in epidemiologic studies. Our methodology may provide insights for other organizations seeking to use EMR data for accurate determination of diabetes.
BACKGROUND: Electronic medical records (EMR) represent a rich source of data, but the value of EMR for health research relies on accurate ascertainment of clinical diagnoses. Identifying diabetes in EMR is complicated by the variety of accepted diagnostic criteria, some of which can be confounded by conditions such as HIV infection. We compared EMR-based criteria for estimating diabetes prevalence and incidence in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), overall and by HIV status, against physician chart review and adjudication. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We used laboratory values (serum glucose and hemoglobin A1c% [HbA1c]), ICD-9 codes, and medication records from the United States Veterans Aging Cohort Study Biomarker Cohort to identify veterans with any indication of diabetes in the EMR for subsequent physician adjudication. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and kappa statistics were used to evaluate agreement of EMR-based diabetes diagnoses with chart review adjudicated diagnoses. RESULTS: EMR entries were reviewed for 1546 persons with HIV (PWH) and 843 HIV-negative participants through 2015. Agreement was at least moderate overall (kappa ≥ 0.42) for all pre-specified measures and among PWH vs HIV-negative, and African-American vs white sub-groups. Having at least one HbA1c ≥6.5% provided substantial agreement with chart adjudication for prevalent and incident diabetes (kappa = 0.89 and 0.73). CONCLUSIONS: Identification of those with diabetes nationally within the VHA can be used in future studies to evaluate treatments, health outcomes, and adjust for diabetes in epidemiologic studies. Our methodology may provide insights for other organizations seeking to use EMR data for accurate determination of diabetes.
Authors: David C Ziemer; Paul Kolm; William S Weintraub; Viola Vaccarino; Mary K Rhee; Jennifer G Twombly; K M Venkat Narayan; David D Koch; Lawrence S Phillips Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2010-06-15 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Melissa Herrin; Janet P Tate; Kathleen M Akgün; Adeel A Butt; Kristina Crothers; Matthew S Freiberg; Cynthia L Gibert; David A Leaf; David Rimland; Maria C Rodriguez-Barradas; Chris B Ruser; Kevan C Herold; Amy C Justice Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2016-10-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Amy C Justice; Elaine Lasky; Kathleen A McGinnis; Melissa Skanderson; Joseph Conigliaro; Shawn L Fultz; Kristina Crothers; Linda Rabeneck; Maria Rodriguez-Barradas; Sharon B Weissman; Kendall Bryant Journal: Med Care Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Laurence Slama; Frank J Palella; Alison G Abraham; Xiuhong Li; Corinne Vigouroux; Gilles Pialoux; Lawrence Kingsley; Jordan E Lake; Todd T Brown Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2014-08-04 Impact factor: 5.790
Authors: Kathleen A McGinnis; Melissa Skanderson; Forrest L Levin; Cynthia Brandt; Joseph Erdos; Amy C Justice Journal: Med Care Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Susan E Spratt; Katherine Pereira; Bradi B Granger; Bryan C Batch; Matthew Phelan; Michael Pencina; Marie Lynn Miranda; Ebony Boulware; Joseph E Lucas; Charlotte L Nelson; Benjamin Neely; Benjamin A Goldstein; Pamela Barth; Rachel L Richesson; Isaretta L Riley; Leonor Corsino; Eugenia R McPeek Hinz; Shelley Rusincovitch; Jennifer Green; Anna Beth Barton; Carly Kelley; Kristen Hyland; Monica Tang; Amanda Elliott; Ewa Ruel; Alexander Clark; Melanie Mabrey; Kay Lyn Morrissey; Jyothi Rao; Beatrice Hong; Marjorie Pierre-Louis; Katherine Kelly; Nicole Jelesoff Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2017-04-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Samuel S Bailin; Suman Kundu; Melissa Wellons; Matthew S Freiberg; Margaret F Doyle; Russell P Tracy; Amy C Justice; Celestine N Wanjalla; Alan L Landay; Kaku So-Armah; Simon Mallal; Jonathan A Kropski; John R Koethe Journal: AIDS Date: 2022-03-15 Impact factor: 4.177