Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31020755›Full record

ArticlePharmacoepidemiology and drug safety2019

Identifying and classifying opioid-related overdoses: A validation study.

Carla A Green, Nancy A Perrin, Brian Hazlehurst, Shannon L Janoff, Angela DeVeaugh-Geiss, David S Carrell, Carlos G Grijalva, Caihua Liang, Cheryl L Enger, Paul M Coplan

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

45 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

10 authors.

Carla A GreenCenter for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, Oregon.ORCID 0000-0002-0000-4381
Nancy A PerrinCenter for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, Oregon.
Brian HazlehurstCenter for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, Oregon.ORCID 0000-0001-9365-3964
Shannon L JanoffCenter for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, Oregon.
Angela DeVeaugh-GeissIndivior, Inc. North Chesterfield, Virginia.
David S CarrellHealth Research Institute, Kaiser Permanente Washington, Seattle, Washington.ORCID 0000-0002-8471-0928
Carlos G GrijalvaDepartment of Health Policy, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Caihua LiangEpidemiology, Optum, Boston, Massachusetts.ORCID 0000-0001-6934-3587
Cheryl L EngerEpidemiology, Optum, Boston, Massachusetts.
Paul M CoplanEpidemiology, Johnson & Johnson, New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe study aims to develop and validate algorithms to identify and classify opioid overdoses using claims and other coded data, and clinical text extracted from electronic health records using natural language processing (NLP).

methodsPrimary data were derived from Kaiser Permanente Northwest (2008-2014), an integrated health care system (~n > 475 000 unique individuals per year). Data included International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes for nonfatal diagnoses, International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes for fatal events, clinical notes, and prescription medication records. We assessed sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for algorithms relative to medical chart review and conducted assessments of algorithm portability in Kaiser Permanente Washington, Tennessee State Medicaid, and Optum.

resultsCode-based algorithm performance was excellent for opioid-related overdoses (sensitivity = 97.2%, specificity = 84.6%) and classification of heroin-involved overdoses (sensitivity = 91.8%, specificity = 99.0%). Performance was acceptable for code-based suicide/suicide attempt classifications (sensitivity = 70.7%, specificity = 90.5%); sensitivity improved with NLP (sensitivity = 78.7%, specificity = 91.0%). Performance was acceptable for the code-based substance abuse-involved classification (sensitivity = 75.3%, specificity = 79.5%); sensitivity improved with the NLP-enhanced algorithm (sensitivity = 80.5%, specificity = 76.3%). The opioid-related overdose algorithm performed well across portability assessment sites, with sensitivity greater than 96% and specificity greater than 84%. Cross-site sensitivity for heroin-involved overdose was greater than 87%, specificity greater than or equal to 99%.

conclusionsCode-based algorithms developed to detect opioid-related overdoses and classify them according to heroin involvement perform well. Algorithms for classifying suicides/attempts and abuse-related opioid overdoses perform adequately for use for research, particularly given the complexity of classifying such overdoses. The NLP-enhanced algorithms for suicides/suicide attempts and abuse-related overdoses perform significantly better than code-based algorithms and are appropriate for use in settings that have data and capacity to use NLP.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsAnalgesics, OpioidDrug OverdoseElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHeroinHumansMaleMiddle AgedNatural Language ProcessingOpioid-Related DisordersSensitivity and SpecificitySuicideSuicide, AttemptedAnalgesics, OpioidHeroinabusealgorithmsheroinmethodsopioid overdosepharmacoepidemiologysuicide

Identifiers

PMID31020755
PMCPMC6767606

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.