ArticleBMC medical research methodology2021
Intra-database validation of case-identifying algorithms using reconstituted electronic health records from healthcare claims data.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic Performance of Prostate Cancer Disease-Specific Phenotypes Identified Using Real-World Databases: A Systematic Review.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2025Pooled it
- Epidemiology and Treatment Patterns of Stage III Resectable Melanoma Treated with Adjuvant Therapy: A Real-World Study Using the SNDS Database in France.Dermatology and therapy · 2026Article
- Validation of rule-based detection methods for relapse in multiple sclerosis.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Using electronic medical records to analyze outpatient visits of persons with epilepsy during the pandemic-experience from a low middle income country.Acta epileptologica · 2025Article
- Trends in Antiseizure Medication Prescribing Among Nursing Home Residents With and Without a Seizure Diagnosis.The neurologist · 2023Article
- Clustering of prostate cancer healthcare pathways in the French National Healthcare database.Cancer innovation · 2023Article
- Evaluation of VTE, MACE, and Serious Infections Among Patients with RA Treated with Baricitinib Compared to TNFi: A Multi-Database Study of Patients in Routine Care Using Disease Registries and Claims Databases.Rheumatology and therapy · 2023Article
- Real-world data: Assessing electronic health records and medical claims data to support regulatory decision-making for drug and biological products.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2022Article
- Validation of Algorithms to Identify Acute Myocardial Infarction, Stroke, and Cardiovascular Death in German Health Insurance Data.Clinical epidemiology · 2022Article
- Development and Validation of an EHR-based Algorithm for IdentifyingIn vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDiagnosis performances of case-identifying algorithms developed in healthcare database are usually assessed by comparing identified cases with an external data source. When this is not feasible, intra-database validation can present an appropriate alternative.
objectivesTo illustrate through two practical examples how to perform intra-database validations of case-identifying algorithms using reconstituted Electronic Health Records (rEHRs).
methodsPatients with 1) multiple sclerosis (MS) relapses and 2) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) were identified in the French nationwide healthcare database (SNDS) using two case-identifying algorithms. A validation study was then conducted to estimate diagnostic performances of these algorithms through the calculation of their positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV). To that end, anonymized rEHRs were generated based on the overall information captured in the SNDS over time (e.g. procedure, hospital stays, drug dispensing, medical visits) for a random selection of patients identified as cases or non-cases according to the predefined algorithms. For each disease, an independent validation committee reviewed the rEHRs of 100 cases and 100 non-cases in order to adjudicate on the status of the selected patients (true case/ true non-case), blinded with respect to the result of the corresponding algorithm.
resultsAlgorithm for relapses identification in MS showed a 95% PPV and 100% NPV. Algorithm for mCRPC identification showed a 97% PPV and 99% NPV.
conclusionThe use of rEHRs to conduct an intra-database validation appears to be a valuable tool to estimate the performances of a case-identifying algorithm and assess its validity, in the absence of alternative.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.