Validation of Algorithms Used to Identify Red Blood Cell Transfusion Related Admissions in Veteran Patients with End Stage Renal Disease.

Celena B Peters, Jared L Hansen, Ahmad Halwani, Monique E Cho, Jianwei Leng, Tina Huynh, Zachary Burningham, John Caloyeras, Tara Matsuda, Brian C Sauer
{"title":"Validation of Algorithms Used to Identify Red Blood Cell Transfusion Related Admissions in Veteran Patients with End Stage Renal Disease.","authors":"Celena B Peters,&nbsp;Jared L Hansen,&nbsp;Ahmad Halwani,&nbsp;Monique E Cho,&nbsp;Jianwei Leng,&nbsp;Tina Huynh,&nbsp;Zachary Burningham,&nbsp;John Caloyeras,&nbsp;Tara Matsuda,&nbsp;Brian C Sauer","doi":"10.5334/egems.257","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The goal of this study was to compare the performance of several database algorithms designed to identify red blood cell (RBC) Transfusion Related hospital Admissions (TRAs) in Veterans with end stage renal disease (ESRD).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Hospitalizations in Veterans with ESRD and evidence of dialysis between 01/01/2008 and 12/31/2013 were screened for TRAs using a clinical algorithm (CA) and four variations of claims-based algorithms (CBA 1-4). Criteria were implemented to exclude patients with non-ESRD-related anemia (e.g., injury, surgery, bleeding, medications known to produce anemia). Diagnostic performance of each algorithm was delineated based on two clinical representations of a TRA: RBC transfusion required to treat ESRD-related anemia on admission regardless of the reason for admission (labeled as TRA) and hospitalization for the primary purpose of treating ESRD-related anemia (labeled TRA-Primary). The performance of all algorithms was determined by comparing each to a reference standard established by medical records review. Population-level estimates of classification agreement statistics were calculated for each algorithm using inverse probability weights and bootstrapping procedures. Due to the low prevalence of TRAs, the geometric mean was considered the primary measure of algorithm performance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After application of exclusion criteria, the study consisted of 12,388 Veterans with 26,672 admissions. The CA had a geometric mean of 90.8% (95% Confidence Interval: 81.8, 95.6) and 94.7% (95% CI: 80.5, 98.7) for TRA and TRA-Primary, respectively. The geometric mean for the CBAs ranged from 60.3% (95% CI: 53.2, 66.9) to 91.8% (95% CI: 86.9, 95) for TRA, and from 80.7% (95% CI: 72.9, 86.7) to 96.7% (95% CI: 94.1, 98.2) for TRA-Primary. The adjusted proportions of admissions classified as TRAs was 3.2% (95% CI: 2.8, 3.8) and TRA-Primary was 1.3% (95% CI: 1.1, 1.7).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The CA and select CBAs were able to identify TRAs and TRA-primary with high levels of accuracy and can be used to examine anemia management practices in ESRD patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":72880,"journal":{"name":"EGEMS (Washington, DC)","volume":"7 1","pages":"23"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6611485/pdf/","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EGEMS (Washington, DC)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/egems.257","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Background: The goal of this study was to compare the performance of several database algorithms designed to identify red blood cell (RBC) Transfusion Related hospital Admissions (TRAs) in Veterans with end stage renal disease (ESRD).

Methods: Hospitalizations in Veterans with ESRD and evidence of dialysis between 01/01/2008 and 12/31/2013 were screened for TRAs using a clinical algorithm (CA) and four variations of claims-based algorithms (CBA 1-4). Criteria were implemented to exclude patients with non-ESRD-related anemia (e.g., injury, surgery, bleeding, medications known to produce anemia). Diagnostic performance of each algorithm was delineated based on two clinical representations of a TRA: RBC transfusion required to treat ESRD-related anemia on admission regardless of the reason for admission (labeled as TRA) and hospitalization for the primary purpose of treating ESRD-related anemia (labeled TRA-Primary). The performance of all algorithms was determined by comparing each to a reference standard established by medical records review. Population-level estimates of classification agreement statistics were calculated for each algorithm using inverse probability weights and bootstrapping procedures. Due to the low prevalence of TRAs, the geometric mean was considered the primary measure of algorithm performance.

Results: After application of exclusion criteria, the study consisted of 12,388 Veterans with 26,672 admissions. The CA had a geometric mean of 90.8% (95% Confidence Interval: 81.8, 95.6) and 94.7% (95% CI: 80.5, 98.7) for TRA and TRA-Primary, respectively. The geometric mean for the CBAs ranged from 60.3% (95% CI: 53.2, 66.9) to 91.8% (95% CI: 86.9, 95) for TRA, and from 80.7% (95% CI: 72.9, 86.7) to 96.7% (95% CI: 94.1, 98.2) for TRA-Primary. The adjusted proportions of admissions classified as TRAs was 3.2% (95% CI: 2.8, 3.8) and TRA-Primary was 1.3% (95% CI: 1.1, 1.7).

Conclusions: The CA and select CBAs were able to identify TRAs and TRA-primary with high levels of accuracy and can be used to examine anemia management practices in ESRD patients.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

用于识别终末期肾病退伍军人患者红细胞输血相关入院的算法验证
背景:本研究的目的是比较几种数据库算法的性能,这些算法设计用于识别终末期肾病(ESRD)退伍军人的红细胞(RBC)输血相关住院(TRAs)。方法:使用临床算法(CA)和四种基于索赔的算法(CBA 1-4)筛选2008年1月1日至2013年12月31日期间住院的ESRD退伍军人和透析证据。实施标准以排除非esrd相关性贫血(例如,损伤、手术、出血、已知导致贫血的药物)的患者。每种算法的诊断性能是基于TRA的两种临床表现来描述的:入院时治疗esrd相关贫血所需的红细胞输血,而不管入院原因(标记为TRA)和住院治疗esrd相关贫血的主要目的(标记为TRA- primary)。所有算法的性能都是通过与医疗记录审查建立的参考标准进行比较来确定的。使用逆概率权重和自举程序计算每种算法的分类协议统计的总体水平估计。由于TRAs的发生率较低,几何平均值被认为是算法性能的主要衡量标准。结果:应用排除标准后,该研究包括12,388名退伍军人,26,672名入院。TRA和TRA- primary的几何平均CA分别为90.8%(95%可信区间:81.8,95.6)和94.7% (95% CI: 80.5, 98.7)。TRA的cba几何平均值为60.3% (95% CI: 53.2, 66.9)至91.8% (95% CI: 86.9, 95), TRA- primary的cba几何平均值为80.7% (95% CI: 72.9, 86.7)至96.7% (95% CI: 94.1, 98.2)。经调整后归类为tra的入院比例为3.2% (95% CI: 2.8, 3.8), TRA-Primary为1.3% (95% CI: 1.1, 1.7)。结论:CA和精选cba能够以高水平的准确性识别TRAs和TRA-primary,可用于检查ESRD患者的贫血管理实践。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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