使用诊断代码定义年龄相关性黄斑变性队列的差异

F. Kalaw, Jimmy S. Chen, Sally L. Baxter
{"title":"使用诊断代码定义年龄相关性黄斑变性队列的差异","authors":"F. Kalaw, Jimmy S. Chen, Sally L. Baxter","doi":"10.3390/informatics11020028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Data harmonization is vital for secondary electronic health record data analysis, especially when combining data from multiple sources. Currently, there is a gap in knowledge as to how studies identify cohorts of patients with age-related macular degeneration (AMD), a leading cause of blindness. We hypothesize that there is variation in using medical condition codes to define cohorts of AMD patients that can lead to either the under- or overrepresentation of such cohorts. This study identified articles studying AMD using the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9, ICD-9-CM, ICD-10, and ICD-10-CM). The data elements reviewed included the year of publication; dataset origin (Veterans Affairs, registry, national or commercial claims database, and institutional EHR); total number of subjects; and ICD codes used. A total of thirty-seven articles were reviewed. Six (16%) articles used cohort definitions from two ICD terminologies. The Medicare database was the most used dataset (14, 38%), and there was a noted increase in the use of other datasets in the last few years. We identified substantial variation in the use of ICD codes for AMD. For the studies that used ICD-10 terminologies, 7 (out of 9, 78%) defined the AMD codes correctly, whereas, for the studies that used ICD-9 and 9-CM terminologies, only 2 (out of 30, 7%) defined and utilized the appropriate AMD codes (p = 0.0001). Of the 43 cohort definitions used from 37 articles, 31 (72%) had missing or incomplete AMD codes used, and only 9 (21%) used the exact codes. Additionally, 13 articles (35%) captured ICD codes that were not within the scope of AMD diagnosis. Efforts to standardize data are needed to provide a reproducible research output.","PeriodicalId":507941,"journal":{"name":"Informatics","volume":"19 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Variations in Using Diagnosis Codes for Defining Age-Related Macular Degeneration Cohorts\",\"authors\":\"F. Kalaw, Jimmy S. Chen, Sally L. Baxter\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/informatics11020028\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Data harmonization is vital for secondary electronic health record data analysis, especially when combining data from multiple sources. Currently, there is a gap in knowledge as to how studies identify cohorts of patients with age-related macular degeneration (AMD), a leading cause of blindness. We hypothesize that there is variation in using medical condition codes to define cohorts of AMD patients that can lead to either the under- or overrepresentation of such cohorts. This study identified articles studying AMD using the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9, ICD-9-CM, ICD-10, and ICD-10-CM). The data elements reviewed included the year of publication; dataset origin (Veterans Affairs, registry, national or commercial claims database, and institutional EHR); total number of subjects; and ICD codes used. A total of thirty-seven articles were reviewed. Six (16%) articles used cohort definitions from two ICD terminologies. The Medicare database was the most used dataset (14, 38%), and there was a noted increase in the use of other datasets in the last few years. We identified substantial variation in the use of ICD codes for AMD. For the studies that used ICD-10 terminologies, 7 (out of 9, 78%) defined the AMD codes correctly, whereas, for the studies that used ICD-9 and 9-CM terminologies, only 2 (out of 30, 7%) defined and utilized the appropriate AMD codes (p = 0.0001). Of the 43 cohort definitions used from 37 articles, 31 (72%) had missing or incomplete AMD codes used, and only 9 (21%) used the exact codes. Additionally, 13 articles (35%) captured ICD codes that were not within the scope of AMD diagnosis. Efforts to standardize data are needed to provide a reproducible research output.\",\"PeriodicalId\":507941,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Informatics\",\"volume\":\"19 6\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Informatics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics11020028\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics11020028","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

数据协调对于二次电子健康记录数据分析至关重要,尤其是在结合多个来源的数据时。目前,关于如何识别老年性黄斑变性(AMD)患者群组的研究还存在知识空白,而老年性黄斑变性是导致失明的主要原因。我们假设,在使用医疗条件代码定义老年性黄斑变性患者群组时存在差异,这可能导致此类群组的代表性不足或过高。本研究使用国际疾病分类(ICD-9、ICD-9-CM、ICD-10 和 ICD-10-CM)确定了研究 AMD 的文章。审查的数据元素包括发表年份、数据集来源(退伍军人事务部、登记处、国家或商业索赔数据库以及机构 EHR)、受试者总数以及使用的 ICD 编码。共审查了 37 篇文章。六篇文章(16%)使用了两种 ICD 术语的队列定义。医疗保险(Medicare)数据库是使用最多的数据集(14 篇,占 38%),在过去几年中,其他数据集的使用明显增加。我们发现在使用 AMD 的 ICD 代码方面存在很大差异。在使用 ICD-10 术语的研究中,有 7 项(9 项中的 78%)正确定义了 AMD 代码,而在使用 ICD-9 和 9-CM 术语的研究中,只有 2 项(30 项中的 7%)定义并使用了适当的 AMD 代码(p = 0.0001)。在 37 篇文章中使用的 43 个队列定义中,有 31 篇(72%)使用了缺失或不完整的 AMD 代码,只有 9 篇(21%)使用了准确的代码。此外,有 13 篇文章(35%)采用了不属于 AMD 诊断范围的 ICD 代码。需要努力实现数据标准化,以提供可重复的研究成果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Variations in Using Diagnosis Codes for Defining Age-Related Macular Degeneration Cohorts
Data harmonization is vital for secondary electronic health record data analysis, especially when combining data from multiple sources. Currently, there is a gap in knowledge as to how studies identify cohorts of patients with age-related macular degeneration (AMD), a leading cause of blindness. We hypothesize that there is variation in using medical condition codes to define cohorts of AMD patients that can lead to either the under- or overrepresentation of such cohorts. This study identified articles studying AMD using the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9, ICD-9-CM, ICD-10, and ICD-10-CM). The data elements reviewed included the year of publication; dataset origin (Veterans Affairs, registry, national or commercial claims database, and institutional EHR); total number of subjects; and ICD codes used. A total of thirty-seven articles were reviewed. Six (16%) articles used cohort definitions from two ICD terminologies. The Medicare database was the most used dataset (14, 38%), and there was a noted increase in the use of other datasets in the last few years. We identified substantial variation in the use of ICD codes for AMD. For the studies that used ICD-10 terminologies, 7 (out of 9, 78%) defined the AMD codes correctly, whereas, for the studies that used ICD-9 and 9-CM terminologies, only 2 (out of 30, 7%) defined and utilized the appropriate AMD codes (p = 0.0001). Of the 43 cohort definitions used from 37 articles, 31 (72%) had missing or incomplete AMD codes used, and only 9 (21%) used the exact codes. Additionally, 13 articles (35%) captured ICD codes that were not within the scope of AMD diagnosis. Efforts to standardize data are needed to provide a reproducible research output.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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