Accuracy of diagnostic codes and algorithms used to identify rheumatoid arthritis and juvenile idiopathic arthritis in administrative claims and electronic health records: systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 3.3 2区 医学 Q1 RHEUMATOLOGY
Constanza Saka-Herrán, Jessica Bennett, Yara Alkabti, Muhammad Fatir, Barbara Clyne, Caroline McCarthy, Gráinne Tynan, Nikki Dunne, Michelle Flood, Eoghan McCarthy, Frank Moriarty
{"title":"Accuracy of diagnostic codes and algorithms used to identify rheumatoid arthritis and juvenile idiopathic arthritis in administrative claims and electronic health records: systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Constanza Saka-Herrán, Jessica Bennett, Yara Alkabti, Muhammad Fatir, Barbara Clyne, Caroline McCarthy, Gráinne Tynan, Nikki Dunne, Michelle Flood, Eoghan McCarthy, Frank Moriarty","doi":"10.1002/acr.25662","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This systematic review aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of algorithms used to identify rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) in electronic health records (EHRs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases and included studies that validated case definitions against a reference standard such as rheumatologist-confirmed diagnosis or ACR/EULAR classification criteria. Title/abstract screening, full-text review, data extraction and quality assessment were all completed in duplicate. Results were synthesised narratively and using a bivariate random-effects meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 35 studies were included. Algorithms varied widely in complexity, ranging from single ICD codes to combinations including disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), hospitalisation records, and specialist diagnosis. Algorithms combining ICD codes with DMARD prescriptions (pooled sensitivity= 0.79 95% CI 0.61-0.90, specificity= 0.96 95% CI 0.72-1.00, PPV= 0.78 95% CI 0.63-0.88) or requiring an ICD code assigned by a rheumatologist (pooled sensitivity= 0.91 95% CI 0.70-0.98, specificity= 0.94 95% CI 0.49-1.00, PPV= 0.70 95% CI 0.64-0.75) showed the highest accuracy, with balanced sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV). Less restrictive algorithms demonstrated high sensitivity but lower PPV. Substantial heterogeneity was observed across studies, likely due to differences in algorithm structure, data sources, and validation methods. Despite this variability, we used conceptually coherent categories to allow for meaningful synthesis, prioritising clinical interpretability.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These findings support the use of more specific algorithms when diagnostic certainty is essential and highlight the need for further validation of high-performing algorithms across diverse healthcare systems.</p>","PeriodicalId":8406,"journal":{"name":"Arthritis Care & Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arthritis Care & Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.25662","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RHEUMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This systematic review aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of algorithms used to identify rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) in electronic health records (EHRs).

Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases and included studies that validated case definitions against a reference standard such as rheumatologist-confirmed diagnosis or ACR/EULAR classification criteria. Title/abstract screening, full-text review, data extraction and quality assessment were all completed in duplicate. Results were synthesised narratively and using a bivariate random-effects meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity.

Results: A total of 35 studies were included. Algorithms varied widely in complexity, ranging from single ICD codes to combinations including disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), hospitalisation records, and specialist diagnosis. Algorithms combining ICD codes with DMARD prescriptions (pooled sensitivity= 0.79 95% CI 0.61-0.90, specificity= 0.96 95% CI 0.72-1.00, PPV= 0.78 95% CI 0.63-0.88) or requiring an ICD code assigned by a rheumatologist (pooled sensitivity= 0.91 95% CI 0.70-0.98, specificity= 0.94 95% CI 0.49-1.00, PPV= 0.70 95% CI 0.64-0.75) showed the highest accuracy, with balanced sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV). Less restrictive algorithms demonstrated high sensitivity but lower PPV. Substantial heterogeneity was observed across studies, likely due to differences in algorithm structure, data sources, and validation methods. Despite this variability, we used conceptually coherent categories to allow for meaningful synthesis, prioritising clinical interpretability.

Conclusions: These findings support the use of more specific algorithms when diagnostic certainty is essential and highlight the need for further validation of high-performing algorithms across diverse healthcare systems.

行政索赔和电子健康记录中用于识别类风湿关节炎和青少年特发性关节炎的诊断代码和算法的准确性:系统回顾和荟萃分析
目的:本系统综述旨在评估电子健康记录(EHRs)中用于识别类风湿关节炎(RA)和青少年特发性关节炎(JIA)的算法的诊断准确性。方法:我们检索了MEDLINE、Embase和CENTRAL数据库,并纳入了对照参考标准(如风湿病学家确诊诊断或ACR/EULAR分类标准)验证病例定义的研究。标题/摘要筛选、全文审阅、数据提取和质量评估均完成一式两份。采用双变量随机效应荟萃分析的敏感性和特异性对结果进行叙述性综合。结果:共纳入35项研究。算法的复杂性差异很大,从单一的ICD代码到包括改善疾病的抗风湿药物(DMARDs)、住院记录和专家诊断在内的组合。结合ICD代码和DMARD处方的算法(合并敏感性= 0.79 95% CI 0.61-0.90,特异性= 0.96 95% CI 0.72-1.00, PPV= 0.78 95% CI 0.63-0.88)或需要风湿病学家分配的ICD代码(合并敏感性= 0.91 95% CI 0.70-0.98,特异性= 0.94 95% CI 0.49-1.00, PPV= 0.70 95% CI 0.64-0.75)显示出最高的准确性,具有平衡的敏感性、特异性和阳性预测值(PPV)。限制较少的算法灵敏度高,但PPV较低。研究中观察到大量的异质性,可能是由于算法结构、数据源和验证方法的差异。尽管存在这种可变性,我们使用概念上连贯的分类来允许有意义的综合,优先考虑临床可解释性。结论:这些发现支持在诊断确定性至关重要时使用更具体的算法,并强调需要进一步验证跨不同医疗保健系统的高性能算法。
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
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
6.40%
发文量
368
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Arthritis Care & Research, an official journal of the American College of Rheumatology and the Association of Rheumatology Health Professionals (a division of the College), is a peer-reviewed publication that publishes original research, review articles, and editorials that promote excellence in the clinical practice of rheumatology. Relevant to the care of individuals with rheumatic diseases, major topics are evidence-based practice studies, clinical problems, practice guidelines, educational, social, and public health issues, health economics, health care policy, and future trends in rheumatology practice.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信