Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27580049›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Identifying Cases of Type 2 Diabetes in Heterogeneous Data Sources: Strategy from the EMIF Project.

Giuseppe Roberto, Ingrid Leal, Naveed Sattar, A Katrina Loomis, Paul Avillach, Peter Egger, Rients van Wijngaarden, David Ansell, Sulev Reisberg, Mari-Liis Tammesoo and 14 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. TASKA: A modular task management system to support health research studies.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2019
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

24 authors.

Giuseppe RobertoRegional Agency for Healthcare Services of Tuscany, Epidemiology unit, Florence, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6478-6442
Ingrid LealDepartment of Medical Informatics, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Naveed SattarBritish Heart Foundation Glasgow Cardiovascular Research Centre, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
A Katrina LoomisPfizer Worldwide Research and Development, Groton, Connecticut, United States of America.
Paul AvillachDepartment of Medical Informatics, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Peter EggerGlaxoSmithKline, Worldwide Epidemiology GSK, Stockley Park West, Uxbridge, United Kingdom.
Rients van WijngaardenPHARMO Institute for Drug Outcomes Research, Utrecht, Netherlands.
David AnsellThe Health Improvement Network, Cegedim Strategic Data Medical Research Ltd, London, United Kingdom.
Sulev ReisbergQuretec, Software Technology and Applications Competence Center, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.
Mari-Liis TammesooEstonian Genome Center, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.
Helene AlavereEstonian Genome Center, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.
Alessandro PasquaHealth Search, Italian College of General Practitioners and Primary Care, Firenze, Italy.
Lars PedersenDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University Hosptial, Aarhus, Denmark.
James CunninghamUniversity of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Lara TramontanArsenàl.IT Consortium, Veneto's Research Centre for eHealth Innovation, Treviso, Italy.
Miguel A MayerHospital del Mar Medical Research Institute (IMIM) and Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain.
Ron HeringsPHARMO Institute for Drug Outcomes Research, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Preciosa ColomaDepartment of Medical Informatics, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Francesco LapiRegional Agency for Healthcare Services of Tuscany, Epidemiology unit, Florence, Italy.
Miriam SturkenboomDepartment of Medical Informatics, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Johan van der LeiDepartment of Medical Informatics, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Martijn J SchuemieJanssen Research & Development, Epidemiology, Titusville, New Jersey, United States of America.
Peter RijnbeekDepartment of Medical Informatics, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Rosa GiniRegional Agency for Healthcare Services of Tuscany, Epidemiology unit, Florence, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Due to the heterogeneity of existing European sources of observational healthcare data, data source-tailored choices are needed to execute multi-data source, multi-national epidemiological studies. This makes transparent documentation paramount. In this proof-of-concept study, a novel standard data derivation procedure was tested in a set of heterogeneous data sources. Identification of subjects with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) was the test case. We included three primary care data sources (PCDs), three record linkage of administrative and/or registry data sources (RLDs), one hospital and one biobank. Overall, data from 12 million subjects from six European countries were extracted. Based on a shared event definition, sixteeen standard algorithms (components) useful to identify T2DM cases were generated through a top-down/bottom-up iterative approach. Each component was based on one single data domain among diagnoses, drugs, diagnostic test utilization and laboratory results. Diagnoses-based components were subclassified considering the healthcare setting (primary, secondary, inpatient care). The Unified Medical Language System was used for semantic harmonization within data domains. Individual components were extracted and proportion of population identified was compared across data sources. Drug-based components performed similarly in RLDs and PCDs, unlike diagnoses-based components. Using components as building blocks, logical combinations with AND, OR, AND NOT were tested and local experts recommended their preferred data source-tailored combination. The population identified per data sources by resulting algorithms varied from 3.5% to 15.7%, however, age-specific results were fairly comparable. The impact of individual components was assessed: diagnoses-based components identified the majority of cases in PCDs (93-100%), while drug-based components were the main contributors in RLDs (81-100%). The proposed data derivation procedure allowed the generation of data source-tailored case-finding algorithms in a standardized fashion, facilitated transparent documentation of the process and benchmarking of data sources, and provided bases for interpretation of possible inter-data source inconsistency of findings in future studies.

Indexed as

Databases, FactualData MiningDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2EuropeFemaleHumansMale

Identifiers

PMID27580049
PMCPMC5006970

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.