Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34086825›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

External validation of a claims-based model to predict left ventricular ejection fraction class in patients with heart failure.

Mufaddal Mahesri, Kristyn Chin, Abheenava Kumar, Aditya Barve, Rachel Studer, Raquel Lahoz, Rishi J Desai

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Machine learning approaches for electronic health records phenotyping: a methodical review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

7 authors.

Mufaddal MahesriDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital & Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-6684-2337
Kristyn ChinDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital & Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States of America.
Abheenava KumarNovartis Healthcare Pvt. Ltd, Hyderabad, India.
Aditya BarveNovartis Ireland Pvt. Ltd, Dublin, Ireland.
Rachel StuderNovartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.
Raquel LahozNovartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.
Rishi J DesaiDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital & Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-0299-7273

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEjection fraction (EF) is an important prognostic factor in heart failure (HF), but administrative claims databases lack information on EF. We previously developed a model to predict EF class from Medicare claims. Here, we evaluated the performance of this model in an external validation sample of commercial insurance enrollees.

methodsTruven MarketScan claims linked to electronic medical records (EMR) data (IBM Explorys) containing EF measurements were used to identify a cohort of US patients with HF between 01-01-2012 and 10-31-2019. By applying the previously developed model, patients were classified into HF with reduced EF (HFrEF) or preserved EF (HFpEF). EF values recorded in EMR data were used to define gold-standard HFpEF (LVEF ≥45%) and HFrEF (LVEF<45%). Model performance was reported in terms of overall accuracy, positive predicted values (PPV), and sensitivity for HFrEF and HFpEF.

resultsA total of 7,001 HF patients with an average age of 71 years were identified, 1,700 (24.3%) of whom had HFrEF. An overall accuracy of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.80-0.82) was seen in this external validation sample. For HFpEF, the model had sensitivity of 0.96 (95%CI, 0.95-0.97) and PPV of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.81-0.82); while for HFrEF, the sensitivity was 0.32 (95%CI, 0.30-0.34) and PPV was 0.73 (95%CI, 0.69-0.76). These results were consistent with what was previously published in US Medicare claims data.

conclusionsThe successful validation of the Medicare claims-based model provides evidence that this model may be used to identify patient subgroups with specific EF class in commercial claims databases as well.

Indexed as

Databases, FactualStroke VolumeAgedCohort StudiesElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHeart FailureHumansInsurance Claim ReviewMaleMedicareUnited StatesVentricular Dysfunction, Left

Identifiers

PMID34086825
PMCPMC8177622

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.