评估和比较创伤性脑损伤数据来源在VA百万退伍军人计划:描述性流行病学研究

IF 3.7 2区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
Adam X. Maihofer , Catherine Chanfreau-Coffinier , Marissa A. Kellogg , Victoria C. Merritt
{"title":"评估和比较创伤性脑损伤数据来源在VA百万退伍军人计划:描述性流行病学研究","authors":"Adam X. Maihofer ,&nbsp;Catherine Chanfreau-Coffinier ,&nbsp;Marissa A. Kellogg ,&nbsp;Victoria C. Merritt","doi":"10.1016/j.jpsychires.2025.04.038","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>With the increased use and availability of electronic health record (EHR) data, population-based traumatic brain injury (TBI) research has received growing attention. However, a key challenge emerging from this research has been accurate ascertainment of TBI case/control status. While International Classification of Diseases (ICD) diagnosis codes constitute a widely used source of data, their validity may vary by clinic and provider. Examining other TBI data sources from epidemiological databases may help ascertain the value of ICD codes. Within the VA Million Veteran Program (MVP), TBI data is available from several data sources. The purpose of this study was to provide an overview of TBI data sources available within MVP and to evaluate the performance characteristics of these variables. Analyses included up to 657,790 MVP-enrolled Veterans. TBI status (i.e., “TBI” vs. “No TBI”) was examined using several different variables: two variables from the MVP Baseline Survey; one variable from the MVP Lifestyle Survey; TBI ICD codes; and two variables from the VA TBI Screening and Evaluation Program. Several key findings emerged: (1) the availability of TBI data varied across data sources; (2) there were significant differences in TBI prevalence by sex, ancestry, and military service era for all TBI variables; (3) sensitivity and specificity varied considerably across TBI variables; and (4) combining TBI data sources (e.g., defining a TBI case using ICD codes <em>and</em> survey data) resulted in variables with stronger performance characteristics. Findings speak to the power of combining multiple data sources when retrospectively assessing TBI in the EHR.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16868,"journal":{"name":"Journal of psychiatric research","volume":"187 ","pages":"Pages 85-94"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An evaluation and comparison of traumatic brain injury data sources within the VA Million Veteran Program: A descriptive epidemiological study\",\"authors\":\"Adam X. Maihofer ,&nbsp;Catherine Chanfreau-Coffinier ,&nbsp;Marissa A. Kellogg ,&nbsp;Victoria C. Merritt\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jpsychires.2025.04.038\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>With the increased use and availability of electronic health record (EHR) data, population-based traumatic brain injury (TBI) research has received growing attention. However, a key challenge emerging from this research has been accurate ascertainment of TBI case/control status. While International Classification of Diseases (ICD) diagnosis codes constitute a widely used source of data, their validity may vary by clinic and provider. Examining other TBI data sources from epidemiological databases may help ascertain the value of ICD codes. Within the VA Million Veteran Program (MVP), TBI data is available from several data sources. The purpose of this study was to provide an overview of TBI data sources available within MVP and to evaluate the performance characteristics of these variables. Analyses included up to 657,790 MVP-enrolled Veterans. TBI status (i.e., “TBI” vs. “No TBI”) was examined using several different variables: two variables from the MVP Baseline Survey; one variable from the MVP Lifestyle Survey; TBI ICD codes; and two variables from the VA TBI Screening and Evaluation Program. Several key findings emerged: (1) the availability of TBI data varied across data sources; (2) there were significant differences in TBI prevalence by sex, ancestry, and military service era for all TBI variables; (3) sensitivity and specificity varied considerably across TBI variables; and (4) combining TBI data sources (e.g., defining a TBI case using ICD codes <em>and</em> survey data) resulted in variables with stronger performance characteristics. Findings speak to the power of combining multiple data sources when retrospectively assessing TBI in the EHR.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16868,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of psychiatric research\",\"volume\":\"187 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 85-94\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of psychiatric research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022395625002754\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of psychiatric research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022395625002754","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

随着电子健康记录(EHR)数据的使用和可用性的增加,基于人群的创伤性脑损伤(TBI)研究受到越来越多的关注。然而,从这项研究中出现的一个关键挑战是准确确定TBI病例/控制状态。虽然国际疾病分类(ICD)诊断代码是广泛使用的数据来源,但其有效性可能因诊所和提供者而异。检查流行病学数据库中的其他脑外伤数据源可能有助于确定ICD代码的价值。在VA百万退伍军人计划(MVP)中,TBI数据可从多个数据源获得。本研究的目的是提供MVP中可用的TBI数据源的概述,并评估这些变量的性能特征。分析包括多达657,790名mvp退伍军人。TBI状态(即“TBI”与“无TBI”)使用几个不同的变量进行检查:来自MVP基线调查的两个变量;MVP生活方式调查中的一个变量;TBI ICD代码;以及VA TBI筛查和评估项目中的两个变量。主要发现如下:(1)不同数据源的TBI数据可用性存在差异;(2)不同性别、血统和服役年限的TBI患病率存在显著差异;(3)不同TBI变量的敏感性和特异性差异很大;(4)结合TBI数据源(例如,使用ICD代码和调查数据定义TBI病例)导致具有更强性能特征的变量。研究结果表明,在电子病历中回顾性评估TBI时,结合多个数据源的力量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
An evaluation and comparison of traumatic brain injury data sources within the VA Million Veteran Program: A descriptive epidemiological study
With the increased use and availability of electronic health record (EHR) data, population-based traumatic brain injury (TBI) research has received growing attention. However, a key challenge emerging from this research has been accurate ascertainment of TBI case/control status. While International Classification of Diseases (ICD) diagnosis codes constitute a widely used source of data, their validity may vary by clinic and provider. Examining other TBI data sources from epidemiological databases may help ascertain the value of ICD codes. Within the VA Million Veteran Program (MVP), TBI data is available from several data sources. The purpose of this study was to provide an overview of TBI data sources available within MVP and to evaluate the performance characteristics of these variables. Analyses included up to 657,790 MVP-enrolled Veterans. TBI status (i.e., “TBI” vs. “No TBI”) was examined using several different variables: two variables from the MVP Baseline Survey; one variable from the MVP Lifestyle Survey; TBI ICD codes; and two variables from the VA TBI Screening and Evaluation Program. Several key findings emerged: (1) the availability of TBI data varied across data sources; (2) there were significant differences in TBI prevalence by sex, ancestry, and military service era for all TBI variables; (3) sensitivity and specificity varied considerably across TBI variables; and (4) combining TBI data sources (e.g., defining a TBI case using ICD codes and survey data) resulted in variables with stronger performance characteristics. Findings speak to the power of combining multiple data sources when retrospectively assessing TBI in the EHR.
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
Journal of psychiatric research
Journal of psychiatric research 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
2.10%
发文量
622
审稿时长
130 days
期刊介绍: Founded in 1961 to report on the latest work in psychiatry and cognate disciplines, the Journal of Psychiatric Research is dedicated to innovative and timely studies of four important areas of research: (1) clinical studies of all disciplines relating to psychiatric illness, as well as normal human behaviour, including biochemical, physiological, genetic, environmental, social, psychological and epidemiological factors; (2) basic studies pertaining to psychiatry in such fields as neuropsychopharmacology, neuroendocrinology, electrophysiology, genetics, experimental psychology and epidemiology; (3) the growing application of clinical laboratory techniques in psychiatry, including imagery and spectroscopy of the brain, molecular biology and computer sciences;
×
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