Cargando…

Validation of asthma recording in electronic health records: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE: To describe the methods used to validate asthma diagnoses in electronic health records and summarize the results of the validation studies. BACKGROUND: Electronic health records are increasingly being used for research on asthma to inform health services and health policy. Validation of t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nissen, Francis, Quint, Jennifer K, Wilkinson, Samantha, Mullerova, Hana, Smeeth, Liam, Douglas, Ian J
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5716672/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29238227
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S143718
_version_ 1783283996954722304
author Nissen, Francis
Quint, Jennifer K
Wilkinson, Samantha
Mullerova, Hana
Smeeth, Liam
Douglas, Ian J
author_facet Nissen, Francis
Quint, Jennifer K
Wilkinson, Samantha
Mullerova, Hana
Smeeth, Liam
Douglas, Ian J
author_sort Nissen, Francis
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To describe the methods used to validate asthma diagnoses in electronic health records and summarize the results of the validation studies. BACKGROUND: Electronic health records are increasingly being used for research on asthma to inform health services and health policy. Validation of the recording of asthma diagnoses in electronic health records is essential to use these databases for credible epidemiological asthma research. METHODS: We searched EMBASE and MEDLINE databases for studies that validated asthma diagnoses detected in electronic health records up to October 2016. Two reviewers independently assessed the full text against the predetermined inclusion criteria. Key data including author, year, data source, case definitions, reference standard, and validation statistics (including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value [PPV], and negative predictive value [NPV]) were summarized in two tables. RESULTS: Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies demonstrated a high validity using at least one case definition (PPV >80%). Ten studies used a manual validation as the reference standard; each had at least one case definition with a PPV of at least 63%, up to 100%. We also found two studies using a second independent database to validate asthma diagnoses. The PPVs of the best performing case definitions ranged from 46% to 58%. We found one study which used a questionnaire as the reference standard to validate a database case definition; the PPV of the case definition algorithm in this study was 89%. CONCLUSION: Attaining high PPVs (>80%) is possible using each of the discussed validation methods. Identifying asthma cases in electronic health records is possible with high sensitivity, specificity or PPV, by combining multiple data sources, or by focusing on specific test measures. Studies testing a range of case definitions show wide variation in the validity of each definition, suggesting this may be important for obtaining asthma definitions with optimal validity.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5716672
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Dove Medical Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57166722017-12-13 Validation of asthma recording in electronic health records: a systematic review Nissen, Francis Quint, Jennifer K Wilkinson, Samantha Mullerova, Hana Smeeth, Liam Douglas, Ian J Clin Epidemiol Review OBJECTIVE: To describe the methods used to validate asthma diagnoses in electronic health records and summarize the results of the validation studies. BACKGROUND: Electronic health records are increasingly being used for research on asthma to inform health services and health policy. Validation of the recording of asthma diagnoses in electronic health records is essential to use these databases for credible epidemiological asthma research. METHODS: We searched EMBASE and MEDLINE databases for studies that validated asthma diagnoses detected in electronic health records up to October 2016. Two reviewers independently assessed the full text against the predetermined inclusion criteria. Key data including author, year, data source, case definitions, reference standard, and validation statistics (including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value [PPV], and negative predictive value [NPV]) were summarized in two tables. RESULTS: Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies demonstrated a high validity using at least one case definition (PPV >80%). Ten studies used a manual validation as the reference standard; each had at least one case definition with a PPV of at least 63%, up to 100%. We also found two studies using a second independent database to validate asthma diagnoses. The PPVs of the best performing case definitions ranged from 46% to 58%. We found one study which used a questionnaire as the reference standard to validate a database case definition; the PPV of the case definition algorithm in this study was 89%. CONCLUSION: Attaining high PPVs (>80%) is possible using each of the discussed validation methods. Identifying asthma cases in electronic health records is possible with high sensitivity, specificity or PPV, by combining multiple data sources, or by focusing on specific test measures. Studies testing a range of case definitions show wide variation in the validity of each definition, suggesting this may be important for obtaining asthma definitions with optimal validity. Dove Medical Press 2017-12-01 /pmc/articles/PMC5716672/ /pubmed/29238227 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S143718 Text en © 2017 Nissen et al. This work is published by Dove Medical Press Limited, and licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License The full terms of the License are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Review
Nissen, Francis
Quint, Jennifer K
Wilkinson, Samantha
Mullerova, Hana
Smeeth, Liam
Douglas, Ian J
Validation of asthma recording in electronic health records: a systematic review
title Validation of asthma recording in electronic health records: a systematic review
title_full Validation of asthma recording in electronic health records: a systematic review
title_fullStr Validation of asthma recording in electronic health records: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Validation of asthma recording in electronic health records: a systematic review
title_short Validation of asthma recording in electronic health records: a systematic review
title_sort validation of asthma recording in electronic health records: a systematic review
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5716672/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29238227
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S143718
work_keys_str_mv AT nissenfrancis validationofasthmarecordinginelectronichealthrecordsasystematicreview
AT quintjenniferk validationofasthmarecordinginelectronichealthrecordsasystematicreview
AT wilkinsonsamantha validationofasthmarecordinginelectronichealthrecordsasystematicreview
AT mullerovahana validationofasthmarecordinginelectronichealthrecordsasystematicreview
AT smeethliam validationofasthmarecordinginelectronichealthrecordsasystematicreview
AT douglasianj validationofasthmarecordinginelectronichealthrecordsasystematicreview