{"title":"比较使用行政索赔与电子健康记录数据识别糖尿病视网膜病变检查。","authors":"Thomas Su, Alison Gibbons, Diep Tran, Cindy X Cai","doi":"10.1080/09286586.2025.2528675","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To characterize differences in identification of diabetic retinopathy examinations using administrative claims and electronic health record data.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adult patients ≥18 years with diabetes seen in the ophthalmology department at Johns Hopkins Hospital were included. Two methodologies were used to identify diabetic retinopathy examinations across the hospital system. First, a pre-specified set of Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes from administrative claims data were used. Second, natural language processing (NLP) was used to parse ophthalmology provider notes for mention of diabetic retinopathy screening or follow-up. The percentage of visits meeting each set of criteria was determined. Cohen's kappa of agreement between the two methodologies was calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 59,538 patients and 1,926,828 office visits, of which 485,228 (25%) were in the ophthalmology department, were included. Most patients (86%) had at least one diabetic retinopathy examination identified using administrative codes, and 84% using the NLP-based methodology. Of all ophthalmology visits, administrative codes identified more diabetic retinopathy examinations compared to the NLP-based methodology (60%, versus 48%). Cohen's kappa for agreement was 0.57 (standard error 0.001, <i>p</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study found only moderate agreement between the two methodologies for identifying diabetic retinopathy examinations. Given the imprecision of administrative codes, this suggests that prior studies reporting eye care utilization using only administrative claims may be over-estimating receipt of diabetic retinopathy examinations.</p>","PeriodicalId":19607,"journal":{"name":"Ophthalmic epidemiology","volume":" ","pages":"1-6"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12258966/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing the Use of Administrative Claims with the Electronic Health Record Data for Identifying Diabetic Retinopathy Examinations.\",\"authors\":\"Thomas Su, Alison Gibbons, Diep Tran, Cindy X Cai\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/09286586.2025.2528675\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To characterize differences in identification of diabetic retinopathy examinations using administrative claims and electronic health record data.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adult patients ≥18 years with diabetes seen in the ophthalmology department at Johns Hopkins Hospital were included. Two methodologies were used to identify diabetic retinopathy examinations across the hospital system. First, a pre-specified set of Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes from administrative claims data were used. Second, natural language processing (NLP) was used to parse ophthalmology provider notes for mention of diabetic retinopathy screening or follow-up. The percentage of visits meeting each set of criteria was determined. Cohen's kappa of agreement between the two methodologies was calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 59,538 patients and 1,926,828 office visits, of which 485,228 (25%) were in the ophthalmology department, were included. Most patients (86%) had at least one diabetic retinopathy examination identified using administrative codes, and 84% using the NLP-based methodology. Of all ophthalmology visits, administrative codes identified more diabetic retinopathy examinations compared to the NLP-based methodology (60%, versus 48%). Cohen's kappa for agreement was 0.57 (standard error 0.001, <i>p</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study found only moderate agreement between the two methodologies for identifying diabetic retinopathy examinations. Given the imprecision of administrative codes, this suggests that prior studies reporting eye care utilization using only administrative claims may be over-estimating receipt of diabetic retinopathy examinations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19607,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ophthalmic epidemiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-6\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12258966/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ophthalmic epidemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/09286586.2025.2528675\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ophthalmic epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09286586.2025.2528675","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparing the Use of Administrative Claims with the Electronic Health Record Data for Identifying Diabetic Retinopathy Examinations.
Purpose: To characterize differences in identification of diabetic retinopathy examinations using administrative claims and electronic health record data.
Methods: Adult patients ≥18 years with diabetes seen in the ophthalmology department at Johns Hopkins Hospital were included. Two methodologies were used to identify diabetic retinopathy examinations across the hospital system. First, a pre-specified set of Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes from administrative claims data were used. Second, natural language processing (NLP) was used to parse ophthalmology provider notes for mention of diabetic retinopathy screening or follow-up. The percentage of visits meeting each set of criteria was determined. Cohen's kappa of agreement between the two methodologies was calculated.
Results: A total of 59,538 patients and 1,926,828 office visits, of which 485,228 (25%) were in the ophthalmology department, were included. Most patients (86%) had at least one diabetic retinopathy examination identified using administrative codes, and 84% using the NLP-based methodology. Of all ophthalmology visits, administrative codes identified more diabetic retinopathy examinations compared to the NLP-based methodology (60%, versus 48%). Cohen's kappa for agreement was 0.57 (standard error 0.001, p < 0.001).
Conclusion: This study found only moderate agreement between the two methodologies for identifying diabetic retinopathy examinations. Given the imprecision of administrative codes, this suggests that prior studies reporting eye care utilization using only administrative claims may be over-estimating receipt of diabetic retinopathy examinations.
期刊介绍:
Ophthalmic Epidemiology is dedicated to the publication of original research into eye and vision health in the fields of epidemiology, public health and the prevention of blindness. Ophthalmic Epidemiology publishes editorials, original research reports, systematic reviews and meta-analysis articles, brief communications and letters to the editor on all subjects related to ophthalmic epidemiology. A broad range of topics is suitable, such as: evaluating the risk of ocular diseases, general and specific study designs, screening program implementation and evaluation, eye health care access, delivery and outcomes, therapeutic efficacy or effectiveness, disease prognosis and quality of life, cost-benefit analysis, biostatistical theory and risk factor analysis. We are looking to expand our engagement with reports of international interest, including those regarding problems affecting developing countries, although reports from all over the world potentially are suitable. Clinical case reports, small case series (not enough for a cohort analysis) articles and animal research reports are not appropriate for this journal.