Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30789656›Full record

ArticleJAMA ophthalmology2019

Evaluation of an Algorithm for Identifying Ocular Conditions in Electronic Health Record Data.

Joshua D Stein, Moshiur Rahman, Chris Andrews, Joshua R Ehrlich, Shivani Kamat, Manjool Shah, Erin A Boese, Maria A Woodward, Jeff Cowall, Edward H Trager and 2 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA ophthalmology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 63 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Advancing healthcare: the role and impact of AI and foundation models.American journal of translational research · 2024
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Joshua D SteinW. K. Kellogg Eye Center, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor.
Moshiur RahmanW. K. Kellogg Eye Center, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor.
Chris AndrewsW. K. Kellogg Eye Center, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor.
Joshua R EhrlichW. K. Kellogg Eye Center, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor.
Shivani KamatW. K. Kellogg Eye Center, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor.
Manjool ShahW. K. Kellogg Eye Center, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor.
Erin A BoeseW. K. Kellogg Eye Center, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor.
Maria A WoodwardW. K. Kellogg Eye Center, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor.
Jeff CowallData Office for Clinical and Translational Research, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor.
Edward H TragerW. K. Kellogg Eye Center, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor.
Prabha NarayanaswamyW. K. Kellogg Eye Center, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor.
David A HanauerDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor.
University of Michigan–Ann Arbor · USMichigan Center for Translational Pathology · US

Funding

Personalized Forecasting of Disease Trajectory for Patients with Open Angle GlaucomaR01EY026641 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI LAVIERI-WILLIAMS, MARIEL SOFIA, STEIN, JOSHUA D · 2016 to 2020
$2.9M
Addressing Low Vision due to Severe Peripheral Field Loss: Development and Validation of a Patient-Centered Outcome MeasureK23EY027848 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI EHRLICH, JOSHUA ROBERT · 2017 to 2021
$1.2M
Telemedicine For Anterior Eye DiseasesK23EY023596 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI WOODWARD, MARIA ANNEKE · 2013 to 2017
$1.1M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: For research involving big data, researchers must accurately identify patients with ocular diseases or phenotypes of interest. Reliance on administrative billing codes alone for this purpose is limiting. Objective: To develop a method to accurately identify the presence or absence of ocular conditions of interest using electronic health record (EHR) data. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study is a retrospective analysis of the EHR data of patients (n = 122 339) in the Sight Outcomes Research Collaborative Ophthalmology Data Repository who received eye care at participating academic medical centers between August 1, 2012, and August 31, 2017. An algorithm that searches structured and unstructured (free-text) EHR data for conditions of interest was developed and then tested to determine how well it could detect the presence or absence of exfoliation syndrome (XFS). The algorithm was trained to search for evidence of XFS among a sample of patients with and without XFS (n = 200) by reviewing International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision or International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision (ICD-9 or ICD-10) billing codes, the patient's problem list, and text within the ocular examination section and unstructured (free-text) data in the EHR. The likelihood that each patient had XFS was estimated using logistic least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression. The EHR data of all patients were run through the algorithm to generate an XFS probability score for each patient. The algorithm was validated with review of EHRs by glaucoma specialists. Main Outcomes and Measures: Positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of the algorithm were computed as the proportion of patients correctly classified with XFS or without XFS. Results: This study included 122 339 patients, with a mean (SD) age of 52.4 (25.1) years. Of these patients, 69 002 (56.4%) were female and 99 579 (81.4%) were white. The algorithm assigned a less than 10% probability of XFS for 121 085 patients (99.0%) as well as an XFS probability score of more than 75% for 543 patients (0.4%), more than 90% for 353 patients (0.3%), and more than 99% for 83 patients (0.07%). Validated by glaucoma specialists, the algorithm had a PPV of 95.0% (95% CI, 89.5%-97.7%) and an NPV of 100% (95% CI, 91.2%-100%). When there was ICD-9 or ICD-10 billing code documentation of XFS, in 86% or 96% of the records, respectively, evidence of XFS was also recorded elsewhere in the EHR. Conversely, when there was clinical examination or free-text evidence of XFS, it was documented with ICD-9 codes only approximately 40% of the time and even less often with ICD-10 codes. Conclusions and Relevance: The algorithm developed, tested, and validated in this study appears to be better at identifying the presence or absence of XFS in EHR data than the conventional approach of assessing only billing codes; such an algorithm may enhance the ability of investigators to use EHR data to study patients with ocular diseases.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsElectronic Health RecordsEye DiseasesBig DataHumansReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID30789656
PMCPMC6512255
OpenAlexW2916364889

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.