电子健康记录中慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重记录的验证:一项系统综述。

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q2 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
Elizabeth Moore, Philip Stone, Ayda Alizadeh, Jaspreet Sangha, Saranya Das, Shraddha Arshanapalli, Jennifer K Quint
{"title":"电子健康记录中慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重记录的验证:一项系统综述。","authors":"Elizabeth Moore, Philip Stone, Ayda Alizadeh, Jaspreet Sangha, Saranya Das, Shraddha Arshanapalli, Jennifer K Quint","doi":"10.15326/jcopdf.2024.0577","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Acute exacerbations of COPD(AECOPD) can have severe impacts on patients with the disease and a heavy burden on health care resources. Electronic health records (EHRs) are a valuable resource for identifying cases of AECOPD and research. Studies have attempted to validate case definitions of AECOPD and this review aims to summarize validated AECOPD definitions in EHRs and to provide guidance on the best algorithms to use to ensure accurate cohorts of AECOPD cases are available for researchers using EHRs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>MEDLINE and Embase were searched and studies that met the inclusion criteria were reviewed by ≥2 reviewers. Data extracted included the algorithms used to identify AECOPD, the reference standards used to compare against the algorithm, and measures of validity. The risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2 adapted for this review.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 2784 studies found by the search strategy, 12 met the inclusion criteria. The clinical terminology used to build algorithms to detect AECOPD included codes from the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification and Tenth Revision (ICD-9-CM and ICD-10), along with the Read codes from United Kingdom general practices. AECOPD can be identified within EHRs using validated definitions, however, the validity of AECOPD definitions varies considerably depending on the algorithm used and the settings to which they are applied.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although there are validated definitions that can be used to identify AECOPD, there is no clear consensus on which provides the highest validity or the most sensitive and specific definition to use.</p>","PeriodicalId":51340,"journal":{"name":"Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Diseases-Journal of the Copd Foundation","volume":" ","pages":"190-202"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12147829/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validation of Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Recording in Electronic Health Records: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Elizabeth Moore, Philip Stone, Ayda Alizadeh, Jaspreet Sangha, Saranya Das, Shraddha Arshanapalli, Jennifer K Quint\",\"doi\":\"10.15326/jcopdf.2024.0577\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Acute exacerbations of COPD(AECOPD) can have severe impacts on patients with the disease and a heavy burden on health care resources. Electronic health records (EHRs) are a valuable resource for identifying cases of AECOPD and research. Studies have attempted to validate case definitions of AECOPD and this review aims to summarize validated AECOPD definitions in EHRs and to provide guidance on the best algorithms to use to ensure accurate cohorts of AECOPD cases are available for researchers using EHRs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>MEDLINE and Embase were searched and studies that met the inclusion criteria were reviewed by ≥2 reviewers. Data extracted included the algorithms used to identify AECOPD, the reference standards used to compare against the algorithm, and measures of validity. The risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2 adapted for this review.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 2784 studies found by the search strategy, 12 met the inclusion criteria. The clinical terminology used to build algorithms to detect AECOPD included codes from the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification and Tenth Revision (ICD-9-CM and ICD-10), along with the Read codes from United Kingdom general practices. AECOPD can be identified within EHRs using validated definitions, however, the validity of AECOPD definitions varies considerably depending on the algorithm used and the settings to which they are applied.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although there are validated definitions that can be used to identify AECOPD, there is no clear consensus on which provides the highest validity or the most sensitive and specific definition to use.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51340,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Diseases-Journal of the Copd Foundation\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"190-202\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12147829/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Diseases-Journal of the Copd Foundation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15326/jcopdf.2024.0577\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Diseases-Journal of the Copd Foundation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15326/jcopdf.2024.0577","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重(AECOPD)对患者影响严重,对医疗资源造成沉重负担。电子健康记录(EHRs)是识别AECOPD病例和进行研究的宝贵资源。已有研究试图验证AECOPD的病例定义,本综述旨在总结电子病历中已验证的AECOPD定义,并为使用电子病历的研究人员提供最佳算法指导,以确保准确的AECOPD病例队列。方法:检索MEDLINE和Embase,由≥2名审稿人对符合纳入标准的研究进行综述。提取的数据包括用于识别AECOPD的算法,用于与算法进行比较的参考标准,以及有效性度量。偏倚风险采用本综述采用的QUADAS-2评估。结果:在2784项研究中,有12项符合纳入标准。用于构建检测AECOPD的算法的临床术语包括来自国际疾病和相关健康问题统计分类(ICD)第9版和第10版(ICD-9和ICD-10)的代码,以及来自英国一般实践的Read代码。使用经过验证的定义可以在电子病历中识别AECOPD,但是AECOPD定义的有效性根据所使用的算法和它们所应用的设置而有很大差异。结论:虽然已有经过验证的定义可用于鉴别AECOPD,但对于哪一种定义的效度最高或最敏感、最特异尚无明确的共识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Validation of Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Recording in Electronic Health Records: A Systematic Review.

Objective: Acute exacerbations of COPD(AECOPD) can have severe impacts on patients with the disease and a heavy burden on health care resources. Electronic health records (EHRs) are a valuable resource for identifying cases of AECOPD and research. Studies have attempted to validate case definitions of AECOPD and this review aims to summarize validated AECOPD definitions in EHRs and to provide guidance on the best algorithms to use to ensure accurate cohorts of AECOPD cases are available for researchers using EHRs.

Methods: MEDLINE and Embase were searched and studies that met the inclusion criteria were reviewed by ≥2 reviewers. Data extracted included the algorithms used to identify AECOPD, the reference standards used to compare against the algorithm, and measures of validity. The risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2 adapted for this review.

Results: Out of 2784 studies found by the search strategy, 12 met the inclusion criteria. The clinical terminology used to build algorithms to detect AECOPD included codes from the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification and Tenth Revision (ICD-9-CM and ICD-10), along with the Read codes from United Kingdom general practices. AECOPD can be identified within EHRs using validated definitions, however, the validity of AECOPD definitions varies considerably depending on the algorithm used and the settings to which they are applied.

Conclusion: Although there are validated definitions that can be used to identify AECOPD, there is no clear consensus on which provides the highest validity or the most sensitive and specific definition to use.

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
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
8.30%
发文量
45
×
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