Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33623893›Full record

ArticleJAMIA open2020

Cardiovascular disease risk prediction for people with type 2 diabetes in a population-based cohort and in electronic health record data.

Jackie Szymonifka, Sarah Conderino, Christine Cigolle, Jinkyung Ha, Mohammed Kabeto, Jaehong Yu, John A Dodson, Lorna Thorpe, Caroline Blaum, Judy Zhong

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMIA open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jackie SzymonifkaDivision of Biostatistics, Department of Population Health, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6114-6175
Sarah ConderinoDivision of Epidemiology, Department of Population Health, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York, USA.
Christine CigolleDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Jinkyung HaDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Mohammed KabetoDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Jaehong YuDivision of Biostatistics, Department of Population Health, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York, USA.
John A DodsonLeon H. Charney Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA.
Lorna ThorpeDivision of Epidemiology, Department of Population Health, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York, USA.
Caroline BlaumDivision of Geriatric Medicine and Palliative Care, Department of Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA.
Judy ZhongDivision of Biostatistics, Department of Population Health, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York, USA.
NYU Langone Health · USUniversity of Michigan · USNew York University · US

Funding

EHR-based vs population-based CVD risk predictions for older patients with diabetesR01AG065330 · NIA · WEILL MEDICAL COLL OF CORNELL UNIV · PI ZHONG, HUA JUDY · 2020 to 2024
$2.9M
CVD Risk and Outcome Heterogeneity in Older Adults with DiabetesR01AG054467 · NIA · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI ZHONG, HUA JUDY · 2017 to 2020
$1.7M
NIA NIH HHS R01 AG054467NIA NIH HHS R01 AG065330
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveElectronic health records (EHRs) have become a common data source for clinical risk prediction, offering large sample sizes and frequently sampled metrics. There may be notable differences between hospital-based EHR and traditional cohort samples: EHR data often are not population-representative random samples, even for particular diseases, as they tend to be sicker with higher healthcare utilization, while cohort studies often sample healthier subjects who typically are more likely to participate. We investigate heterogeneities between EHR- and cohort-based inferences including incidence rates, risk factor identifications/quantifications, and absolute risks. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis is a retrospective cohort study of older patients with type 2 diabetes using EHR from New York University Langone Health ambulatory care (NYULH-EHR, years 2009-2017) and from the Health and Retirement Survey (HRS, 1995-2014) to study subsequent cardiovascular disease (CVD) risks. We used the same eligibility criteria, outcome definitions, and demographic covariates/biomarkers in both datasets. We compared subsequent CVD incidence rates, hazard ratios (HRs) of risk factors, and discrimination/calibration performances of CVD risk scores.

resultsThe estimated subsequent total CVD incidence rate was 37.5 and 90.6 per 1000 person-years since T2DM onset in HRS and NYULH-EHR respectively. HR estimates were comparable between the datasets for most demographic covariates/biomarkers. Common CVD risk scores underestimated observed total CVD risks in NYULH-EHR. DISCUSSION AND

conclusionEHR-estimated HRs of demographic and major clinical risk factors for CVD were mostly consistent with the estimates from a national cohort, despite high incidences and absolute risks of total CVD outcome in the EHR samples.

Indexed as

cardiovascular diseasecohort analysiselectronic health recordsrisk factorstype 2 diabetes mellitus

Identifiers

PMID33623893
PMCPMC7886535
OpenAlexW3111674025

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.