Sandra Lopez-Leon, Xuerong Wen, Sneha Gaitonde, Ana Sofia Afonso, Sandrine Colas, Rachael L DiSantostefano, Marie-Laure Kürzinger, Maryline Le Noan-Lainé, Vera Ruth Mitter, Gayle Murray, Meritxell Sabidó, Julie Scotto, Melanie H Jacobson, Rebecca L Bromley, Amir Sarayani
{"title":"儿童神经发育结果识别算法的系统综述。","authors":"Sandra Lopez-Leon, Xuerong Wen, Sneha Gaitonde, Ana Sofia Afonso, Sandrine Colas, Rachael L DiSantostefano, Marie-Laure Kürzinger, Maryline Le Noan-Lainé, Vera Ruth Mitter, Gayle Murray, Meritxell Sabidó, Julie Scotto, Melanie H Jacobson, Rebecca L Bromley, Amir Sarayani","doi":"10.1002/pds.70196","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Investigating pediatric neurodevelopmental outcomes (NDO) in studies using secondary data is often challenging due to heterogeneous clinical definitions and medical coding systems. This study aims to identify the algorithms used to define NDO in studies using electronic healthcare data through a systematic literature review.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A search strategy was developed to identify studies on NDO that describe phenotype algorithms from January 1, 2010, to March 10, 2025. The search strategy included terms to identify studies containing algorithms for NDO as an outcome, routinely collected healthcare data, epidemiologic designs likely to incorporate algorithms, and pregnant individuals and/or infants/children. Two independent reviewers assessed eligibility criteria and performed data extraction, with inconsistencies reviewed by a third reviewer. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize categorical and continuous variables appropriately.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The review included 156 publications that implemented algorithms for NDO, with 18 of these studies validating the outcomes. Most publications studied autism spectrum disorder (ASD) (n = 103, 65.6%) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (n = 72, 45.9%) either as a single outcome or as a composite.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Instead of presenting NDO as a composite outcome, it is recommended to present multiple single outcomes. Validated outcomes in data from Nordic countries demonstrate a high positive predictive value when using one code for diagnoses, while more complex algorithms are required for US data. Clearly detailing and establishing the time of assessment for each NDO is critical to inform valid epidemiological estimates.</p>","PeriodicalId":19782,"journal":{"name":"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety","volume":"34 9","pages":"e70196"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12445936/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Systematic Review of Algorithms for Identifying Pediatric Neurodevelopmental Outcomes.\",\"authors\":\"Sandra Lopez-Leon, Xuerong Wen, Sneha Gaitonde, Ana Sofia Afonso, Sandrine Colas, Rachael L DiSantostefano, Marie-Laure Kürzinger, Maryline Le Noan-Lainé, Vera Ruth Mitter, Gayle Murray, Meritxell Sabidó, Julie Scotto, Melanie H Jacobson, Rebecca L Bromley, Amir Sarayani\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/pds.70196\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Investigating pediatric neurodevelopmental outcomes (NDO) in studies using secondary data is often challenging due to heterogeneous clinical definitions and medical coding systems. This study aims to identify the algorithms used to define NDO in studies using electronic healthcare data through a systematic literature review.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A search strategy was developed to identify studies on NDO that describe phenotype algorithms from January 1, 2010, to March 10, 2025. The search strategy included terms to identify studies containing algorithms for NDO as an outcome, routinely collected healthcare data, epidemiologic designs likely to incorporate algorithms, and pregnant individuals and/or infants/children. Two independent reviewers assessed eligibility criteria and performed data extraction, with inconsistencies reviewed by a third reviewer. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize categorical and continuous variables appropriately.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The review included 156 publications that implemented algorithms for NDO, with 18 of these studies validating the outcomes. Most publications studied autism spectrum disorder (ASD) (n = 103, 65.6%) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (n = 72, 45.9%) either as a single outcome or as a composite.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Instead of presenting NDO as a composite outcome, it is recommended to present multiple single outcomes. Validated outcomes in data from Nordic countries demonstrate a high positive predictive value when using one code for diagnoses, while more complex algorithms are required for US data. Clearly detailing and establishing the time of assessment for each NDO is critical to inform valid epidemiological estimates.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19782,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety\",\"volume\":\"34 9\",\"pages\":\"e70196\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12445936/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.70196\",\"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.70196","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
A Systematic Review of Algorithms for Identifying Pediatric Neurodevelopmental Outcomes.
Purpose: Investigating pediatric neurodevelopmental outcomes (NDO) in studies using secondary data is often challenging due to heterogeneous clinical definitions and medical coding systems. This study aims to identify the algorithms used to define NDO in studies using electronic healthcare data through a systematic literature review.
Methods: A search strategy was developed to identify studies on NDO that describe phenotype algorithms from January 1, 2010, to March 10, 2025. The search strategy included terms to identify studies containing algorithms for NDO as an outcome, routinely collected healthcare data, epidemiologic designs likely to incorporate algorithms, and pregnant individuals and/or infants/children. Two independent reviewers assessed eligibility criteria and performed data extraction, with inconsistencies reviewed by a third reviewer. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize categorical and continuous variables appropriately.
Results: The review included 156 publications that implemented algorithms for NDO, with 18 of these studies validating the outcomes. Most publications studied autism spectrum disorder (ASD) (n = 103, 65.6%) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (n = 72, 45.9%) either as a single outcome or as a composite.
Conclusions: Instead of presenting NDO as a composite outcome, it is recommended to present multiple single outcomes. Validated outcomes in data from Nordic countries demonstrate a high positive predictive value when using one code for diagnoses, while more complex algorithms are required for US data. Clearly detailing and establishing the time of assessment for each NDO is critical to inform valid epidemiological estimates.
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.