Effectiveness of the Use of Standardized Vocabularies on Epilepsy Patient Cohort Generation.

IF 2.3 Q3 MEDICAL INFORMATICS
Healthcare Informatics Research Pub Date : 2022-07-01 Epub Date: 2022-07-31 DOI:10.4258/hir.2022.28.3.240
Hyesil Jung, Ho-Young Lee, Sooyoung Yoo, Hee Hwang, Hyunyoung Baek
{"title":"Effectiveness of the Use of Standardized Vocabularies on Epilepsy Patient Cohort Generation.","authors":"Hyesil Jung,&nbsp;Ho-Young Lee,&nbsp;Sooyoung Yoo,&nbsp;Hee Hwang,&nbsp;Hyunyoung Baek","doi":"10.4258/hir.2022.28.3.240","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study investigated the effectiveness of using standardized vocabularies to generate epilepsy patient cohorts with local medical codes, SNOMED Clinical Terms (SNOMED CT), and International Classification of Diseases tenth revision (ICD-10)/Korean Classification of Diseases-7 (KCD-7).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We compared the granularity between SNOMED CT and ICD-10 for epilepsy by counting the number of SNOMED CT concepts mapped to one ICD-10 code. Next, we created epilepsy patient cohorts by selecting all patients who had at least one code included in the concept sets defined using each vocabulary. We set patient cohorts generated by local codes as the reference to evaluate the patient cohorts generated using SNOMED CT and ICD-10/KCD-7. We compared the number of patients, the prevalence of epilepsy, and the age distribution between patient cohorts by year.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In terms of the cohort size, the match rate with the reference cohort was approximately 99.2% for SNOMED CT and 94.0% for ICD-10/KDC7. From 2010 to 2019, the mean prevalence of epilepsy defined using the local codes, SNOMED CT, and ICD-10/KCD-7 was 0.889%, 0.891% and 0.923%, respectively. The age distribution of epilepsy patients showed no significant difference between the cohorts defined using local codes or SNOMED CT, but the ICD-9/KCD-7-generated cohort showed a substantial gap in the age distribution of patients with epilepsy compared to the cohort generated using the local codes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The number and age distribution of patients were substantially different from the reference when we used ICD-10/KCD-7 codes, but not when we used SNOMED CT concepts. Therefore, SNOMED CT is more suitable for representing clinical ideas and conducting clinical studies than ICD-10/KCD-7.</p>","PeriodicalId":12947,"journal":{"name":"Healthcare Informatics Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/65/c6/hir-2022-28-3-240.PMC9388923.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Healthcare Informatics Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4258/hir.2022.28.3.240","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/7/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICAL INFORMATICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Objectives: This study investigated the effectiveness of using standardized vocabularies to generate epilepsy patient cohorts with local medical codes, SNOMED Clinical Terms (SNOMED CT), and International Classification of Diseases tenth revision (ICD-10)/Korean Classification of Diseases-7 (KCD-7).

Methods: We compared the granularity between SNOMED CT and ICD-10 for epilepsy by counting the number of SNOMED CT concepts mapped to one ICD-10 code. Next, we created epilepsy patient cohorts by selecting all patients who had at least one code included in the concept sets defined using each vocabulary. We set patient cohorts generated by local codes as the reference to evaluate the patient cohorts generated using SNOMED CT and ICD-10/KCD-7. We compared the number of patients, the prevalence of epilepsy, and the age distribution between patient cohorts by year.

Results: In terms of the cohort size, the match rate with the reference cohort was approximately 99.2% for SNOMED CT and 94.0% for ICD-10/KDC7. From 2010 to 2019, the mean prevalence of epilepsy defined using the local codes, SNOMED CT, and ICD-10/KCD-7 was 0.889%, 0.891% and 0.923%, respectively. The age distribution of epilepsy patients showed no significant difference between the cohorts defined using local codes or SNOMED CT, but the ICD-9/KCD-7-generated cohort showed a substantial gap in the age distribution of patients with epilepsy compared to the cohort generated using the local codes.

Conclusions: The number and age distribution of patients were substantially different from the reference when we used ICD-10/KCD-7 codes, but not when we used SNOMED CT concepts. Therefore, SNOMED CT is more suitable for representing clinical ideas and conducting clinical studies than ICD-10/KCD-7.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

标准化词汇在癫痫患者队列生成中的应用效果。
目的:探讨使用标准化词汇生成当地医学编码、SNOMED临床术语(SNOMED CT)和《国际疾病分类第十版》(ICD-10)/《韩国疾病分类-7》(KCD-7)癫痫患者队列的有效性。方法:通过统计一个ICD-10编码对应SNOMED CT概念的个数,比较SNOMED CT与ICD-10的粒度。接下来,我们通过选择在使用每个词汇表定义的概念集中至少包含一个代码的所有患者来创建癫痫患者队列。我们以本地编码生成的患者队列为参照,评估使用SNOMED CT和ICD-10/KCD-7生成的患者队列。我们比较了患者数量、癫痫患病率和患者队列之间的年龄分布。结果:在队列规模方面,SNOMED CT与参考队列的匹配率约为99.2%,ICD-10/KDC7与参考队列的匹配率约为94.0%。2010 - 2019年,使用地方代码、SNOMED CT和ICD-10/KCD-7定义的癫痫平均患病率分别为0.889%、0.891%和0.923%。癫痫患者的年龄分布在使用局部编码或SNOMED CT定义的队列之间没有显著差异,但ICD-9/ kcd -7生成的队列与使用局部编码生成的队列相比,癫痫患者的年龄分布存在很大差距。结论:当我们使用ICD-10/KCD-7编码时,患者的数量和年龄分布与参考文献有很大的不同,但当我们使用SNOMED CT概念时,患者的数量和年龄分布与参考文献没有很大的不同。因此,与ICD-10/KCD-7相比,SNOMED CT更适合代表临床理念,进行临床研究。
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
Healthcare Informatics Research
Healthcare Informatics Research MEDICAL INFORMATICS-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
6.90%
发文量
44
×
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