Sara Burns, Ariel Mueller, Matthew Smith, Timothy Houle, Michaela K Farber, Tanzeema Hossain, Justin Manjourides
{"title":"评估电子健康记录数据中基于ICD-10的出生日期代理。","authors":"Sara Burns, Ariel Mueller, Matthew Smith, Timothy Houle, Michaela K Farber, Tanzeema Hossain, Justin Manjourides","doi":"10.1002/pds.70083","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To comply with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Privacy Rule, many real-world data providers mask a patient's date of birth by supplying only year of birth to data users. The lack of granularity around patient age is a challenge when using RWD, especially for pediatric research studies. In this study, a proxy for patient date of birth is evaluated using electronic health record (EHR) data.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This validation study leverages a retrospective cohort of EHR data from Mass General Brigham (MGB) patients born between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2022, to assess the use of the date of a patient's first observed International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) day-of birth code (Z37* or Z38*) as a proxy for date of birth. Alternative proxy measures such as date of first other infancy-related ICD-10-CM code and date of first clinical activity were also assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 82 398 patients born during the five-year study period, 58 047 (70.4%) had an ICD-10-CM birth code and were included in the primary analysis. The mean difference between true date of birth and first observed birth code was 0.3 days with a standard deviation of 15.0 days. The first observed birth code occurred within 30 days of the true date of birth in 99.9% of cases.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Results from this study suggest that the date of the first day-of ICD-10-CM birth code can be used as a proxy for true patient date of birth in pediatric RWD studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":19782,"journal":{"name":"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety","volume":"34 1","pages":"e70083"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating an ICD-10 Based Proxy for Date of Birth in Electronic Health Record Data.\",\"authors\":\"Sara Burns, Ariel Mueller, Matthew Smith, Timothy Houle, Michaela K Farber, Tanzeema Hossain, Justin Manjourides\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/pds.70083\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To comply with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Privacy Rule, many real-world data providers mask a patient's date of birth by supplying only year of birth to data users. The lack of granularity around patient age is a challenge when using RWD, especially for pediatric research studies. In this study, a proxy for patient date of birth is evaluated using electronic health record (EHR) data.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This validation study leverages a retrospective cohort of EHR data from Mass General Brigham (MGB) patients born between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2022, to assess the use of the date of a patient's first observed International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) day-of birth code (Z37* or Z38*) as a proxy for date of birth. Alternative proxy measures such as date of first other infancy-related ICD-10-CM code and date of first clinical activity were also assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 82 398 patients born during the five-year study period, 58 047 (70.4%) had an ICD-10-CM birth code and were included in the primary analysis. The mean difference between true date of birth and first observed birth code was 0.3 days with a standard deviation of 15.0 days. The first observed birth code occurred within 30 days of the true date of birth in 99.9% of cases.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Results from this study suggest that the date of the first day-of ICD-10-CM birth code can be used as a proxy for true patient date of birth in pediatric RWD studies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19782,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety\",\"volume\":\"34 1\",\"pages\":\"e70083\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.70083\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.70083","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Evaluating an ICD-10 Based Proxy for Date of Birth in Electronic Health Record Data.
Purpose: To comply with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Privacy Rule, many real-world data providers mask a patient's date of birth by supplying only year of birth to data users. The lack of granularity around patient age is a challenge when using RWD, especially for pediatric research studies. In this study, a proxy for patient date of birth is evaluated using electronic health record (EHR) data.
Methods: This validation study leverages a retrospective cohort of EHR data from Mass General Brigham (MGB) patients born between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2022, to assess the use of the date of a patient's first observed International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) day-of birth code (Z37* or Z38*) as a proxy for date of birth. Alternative proxy measures such as date of first other infancy-related ICD-10-CM code and date of first clinical activity were also assessed.
Results: Of 82 398 patients born during the five-year study period, 58 047 (70.4%) had an ICD-10-CM birth code and were included in the primary analysis. The mean difference between true date of birth and first observed birth code was 0.3 days with a standard deviation of 15.0 days. The first observed birth code occurred within 30 days of the true date of birth in 99.9% of cases.
Conclusion: Results from this study suggest that the date of the first day-of ICD-10-CM birth code can be used as a proxy for true patient date of birth in pediatric RWD studies.
期刊介绍:
The aim of Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety is to provide an international forum for the communication and evaluation of data, methods and opinion in the discipline of pharmacoepidemiology. The Journal publishes peer-reviewed reports of original research, invited reviews and a variety of guest editorials and commentaries embracing scientific, medical, statistical, legal and economic aspects of pharmacoepidemiology and post-marketing surveillance of drug safety. Appropriate material in these categories may also be considered for publication as a Brief Report.
Particular areas of interest include:
design, analysis, results, and interpretation of studies looking at the benefit or safety of specific pharmaceuticals, biologics, or medical devices, including studies in pharmacovigilance, postmarketing surveillance, pharmacoeconomics, patient safety, molecular pharmacoepidemiology, or any other study within the broad field of pharmacoepidemiology;
comparative effectiveness research relating to pharmaceuticals, biologics, and medical devices. Comparative effectiveness research is the generation and synthesis of evidence that compares the benefits and harms of alternative methods to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor a clinical condition, as these methods are truly used in the real world;
methodologic contributions of relevance to pharmacoepidemiology, whether original contributions, reviews of existing methods, or tutorials for how to apply the methods of pharmacoepidemiology;
assessments of harm versus benefit in drug therapy;
patterns of drug utilization;
relationships between pharmacoepidemiology and the formulation and interpretation of regulatory guidelines;
evaluations of risk management plans and programmes relating to pharmaceuticals, biologics and medical devices.