Validation of Different Dementia Code-Based Definitions in a Population-Based Study of Rheumatoid Arthritis.

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q2 RHEUMATOLOGY
Maria Vassilaki, Roslin Jose George, Rakesh Kumar, Edward Lovering, Sara J Achenbach, Suzette J Bielinski, Jennifer St Sauver, John M Davis, Cynthia S Crowson, Elena Myasoedova
{"title":"Validation of Different Dementia Code-Based Definitions in a Population-Based Study of Rheumatoid Arthritis.","authors":"Maria Vassilaki, Roslin Jose George, Rakesh Kumar, Edward Lovering, Sara J Achenbach, Suzette J Bielinski, Jennifer St Sauver, John M Davis, Cynthia S Crowson, Elena Myasoedova","doi":"10.3899/jrheum.2024-0299","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has been associated with an elevated dementia risk. This study aimed to examine how different diagnostic dementia definitions perform in patients with RA compared to individuals without RA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study population included 2050 individuals (1025 with RA) from a retrospective, population-based cohort in southern Minnesota and compared the performance of 3 code-based dementia diagnostic algorithms with medical record review diagnosis of dementia. For the overall comparison, each patient's complete medical history was used, with no time frames. Sensitivity analyses were performed using 1-, 2-, and 5-year windows around the date that dementia was identified in the medical record (reference standard).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Algorithms performed very similarly in persons with and without RA. The algorithms generally had high specificity, negative predictive values, and accuracy, regardless of the time window studied (> 88%). Sensitivity and positive predictive values varied depending on the algorithm and the time window. Sensitivity values ranged 56.5-95.9%, and positive predictive values ranged 55.2-83.1%. Performance measures declined with more restrictive time windows.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Routinely collected electronic health record (EHR) data were used to define code-based dementia diagnostic algorithms with good performance (vs diagnosis by medical record review). These results can inform future studies that use retrospective databases, especially in the same or a similar EHR infrastructure, to identify dementia in individuals with RA.</p>","PeriodicalId":50064,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Rheumatology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11444897/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Rheumatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.2024-0299","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RHEUMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has been associated with an elevated dementia risk. This study aimed to examine how different diagnostic dementia definitions perform in patients with RA compared to individuals without RA.

Methods: The study population included 2050 individuals (1025 with RA) from a retrospective, population-based cohort in southern Minnesota and compared the performance of 3 code-based dementia diagnostic algorithms with medical record review diagnosis of dementia. For the overall comparison, each patient's complete medical history was used, with no time frames. Sensitivity analyses were performed using 1-, 2-, and 5-year windows around the date that dementia was identified in the medical record (reference standard).

Results: Algorithms performed very similarly in persons with and without RA. The algorithms generally had high specificity, negative predictive values, and accuracy, regardless of the time window studied (> 88%). Sensitivity and positive predictive values varied depending on the algorithm and the time window. Sensitivity values ranged 56.5-95.9%, and positive predictive values ranged 55.2-83.1%. Performance measures declined with more restrictive time windows.

Conclusion: Routinely collected electronic health record (EHR) data were used to define code-based dementia diagnostic algorithms with good performance (vs diagnosis by medical record review). These results can inform future studies that use retrospective databases, especially in the same or a similar EHR infrastructure, to identify dementia in individuals with RA.

类风湿关节炎人群研究中不同痴呆症代码定义的验证。
目的:类风湿性关节炎(RA类风湿关节炎(RA)与痴呆风险升高有关。本研究旨在研究不同的痴呆诊断定义在类风湿性关节炎患者与非类风湿性关节炎患者中的表现:该研究的研究对象包括明尼苏达州南部一个基于人群的回顾性队列中的 2050 人(其中 1025 人患有 RA),并比较了三种基于代码的痴呆诊断算法与病历回顾诊断痴呆的表现。在整体比较中,没有使用时间框架,而是使用了每位患者的完整病史。使用病历(参考标准)中发现痴呆症的日期前后 1 年、2 年和 5 年的窗口进行了敏感性分析:在患有和未患有 RA 的患者中,算法的表现非常相似。无论研究的时间窗口如何(>88%),算法的特异性、阴性预测值和准确性都很高。灵敏度和阳性预测值因算法和研究的时间窗而异。灵敏度从 56.5% 到 95.9%,阳性预测值从 55.2% 到 83.1%。随着时间窗口限制的增加,性能指标也在下降:常规收集的电子健康记录(EHR)数据可用于定义基于代码的痴呆诊断算法,且性能良好(与通过病历审查进行诊断相比)。这些结果可为今后使用回顾性数据库(尤其是相同或相似的电子病历基础设施)识别 RA 患者痴呆症的研究提供参考。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Rheumatology
Journal of Rheumatology 医学-风湿病学
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
5.10%
发文量
285
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Rheumatology is a monthly international serial edited by Earl D. Silverman. The Journal features research articles on clinical subjects from scientists working in rheumatology and related fields, as well as proceedings of meetings as supplements to regular issues. Highlights of our 41 years serving Rheumatology include: groundbreaking and provocative editorials such as "Inverting the Pyramid," renowned Pediatric Rheumatology, proceedings of OMERACT and the Canadian Rheumatology Association, Cochrane Musculoskeletal Reviews, and supplements on emerging therapies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信