Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32565422›Full record

ArticleBMJ open diabetes research & care2020

Validation of a type 1 diabetes algorithm using electronic medical records and administrative healthcare data to study the population incidence and prevalence of type 1 diabetes in Ontario, Canada.

Alanna Weisman, Karen Tu, Jacqueline Young, Matthew Kumar, Peter C Austin, Liisa Jaakkimainen, Lorraine Lipscombe, Ronnie Aronson, Gillian L Booth

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open diabetes research & care, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Association between sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors and arrhythmic outcomes in patients with diabetes and pre-existing atrial fibrillation.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  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

9 authors.

Alanna WeismanICES, Toronto, Ontario, Canada alanna.weisman@mail.utoronto.ca.ORCID 0000-0003-3778-653X
Karen TuInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Jacqueline YoungICES, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Matthew KumarICES, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Peter C AustinICES, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Liisa JaakkimainenICES, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Lorraine LipscombeICES, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Ronnie AronsonLMC Diabetes & Endocrinology, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Gillian L BoothICES, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionWe aimed to develop algorithms distinguishing type 1 diabetes (T1D) from type 2 diabetes in adults ≥18 years old using primary care electronic medical record (EMRPC) and administrative healthcare data from Ontario, Canada, and to estimate T1D prevalence and incidence. RESEARCH DESIGN AND

methodsThe reference population was a random sample of patients with diabetes in EMRPC whose charts were manually abstracted (n=5402). Algorithms were developed using classification trees, random forests, and rule-based methods, using electronic medical record (EMR) data, administrative data, or both. Algorithm performance was assessed in EMRPC. Administrative data algorithms were additionally evaluated using a diabetes clinic registry with endocrinologist-assigned diabetes type (n=29 371). Three algorithms were applied to the Ontario population to evaluate the minimum, moderate and maximum estimates of T1D prevalence and incidence rates between 2010 and 2017, and trends were analyzed using negative binomial regressions.

resultsOf 5402 individuals with diabetes in EMRPC, 195 had T1D. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for the best performing algorithms were 80.6% (75.9-87.2), 99.8% (99.7-100), 94.9% (92.3-98.7), and 99.3% (99.1-99.5) for EMR, 51.3% (44.0-58.5), 99.5% (99.3-99.7), 79.4% (71.2-86.1), and 98.2% (97.8-98.5) for administrative data, and 87.2% (81.7-91.5), 99.9% (99.7-100), 96.6% (92.7-98.7) and 99.5% (99.3-99.7) for combined EMR and administrative data. Administrative data algorithms had similar sensitivity and specificity in the diabetes clinic registry. Of 11 499 711 adults in Ontario in 2017, there were 24 789 (0.22%, minimum estimate) to 102 140 (0.89%, maximum estimate) with T1D. Between 2010 and 2017, the age-standardized and sex-standardized prevalence rates per 1000 person-years increased (minimum estimate 1.7 to 2.56, maximum estimate 7.48 to 9.86, p<0.0001). In contrast, incidence rates decreased (minimum estimate 0.1 to 0.04, maximum estimate 0.47 to 0.09, p<0.0001).

conclusionsPrimary care EMR and administrative data algorithms performed well in identifying T1D and demonstrated increasing T1D prevalence in Ontario. These algorithms may permit the development of large, population-based cohort studies of T1D.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2AdolescentAdultAlgorithmsDelivery of Health CareElectronic Health RecordsHumansIncidenceOntarioPrevalenceclinical epidemiologypopulation-based studiestype 1validation

Identifiers

PMID32565422
PMCPMC7307536

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.