ArticleJournal of blood medicine2021
Identification and Validation of Hemophilia-Related Outcomes on Japanese Electronic Medical Record Database (Hemophilia-REAL V Study).
Article in Journal of blood medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A new electronic medical record database linked to claims data and discharge abstract data (the RWD database) in Japan: Study design and profile.Annals of clinical epidemiology · 2024Article
- Longitudinal impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the development of mental disorders in preadolescents and adolescents.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Persistence and Safety of Golimumab in Elderly Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis and Renal Dysfunction in a Real-World Setting.Drugs - real world outcomes · 2023Article
- Burden of congenital hemophilia A requiring treatment in Japan: The HIKOBOSHI study.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2022Article
- Validity of diagnoses, procedures, and birth records in a Japanese administrative claims database for pediatric patients.Pediatrics international : official journal of the Japan Pediatric SocietyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeRoutinely collected data are useful for epidemiological study in hemophilia, but few studies validated the algorithm accuracy. We aimed to develop and validate algorithms to identify patients with hemophilia A and hemophilia A-related events. PATIENTS AND
methodsThis validation study compared data from medical chart reviews to a database of routinely collected health data, including claims data and discharge abstracts, and especially electronic medical records (EMR), at a single Japanese hospital (Kurashiki Central Hospital) using a stratified sampling method. Two physicians reviewed the charts for all patients at high risk for hemophilia A, and randomly sampled patients with moderate risk. Diagnostic accuracy was determined based on sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value.
resultsThere were 1,033,845 eligible patients, of whom 31 had a diagnosis of hemophilia A. ICD-10 diagnosis code D66 in the EMR identified hemophilia A with a sensitivity of 93.5% (95% confidence interval: 78.6-99) and PPV of 61.7% (95% confidence interval: 46.4-75.5). The administration of ≥10,000 units/month of factor VIII products, as documented in the EMR, identified 81.3% of patients with prophylactic factor replacement therapy. The ICD-10 diagnosis code for intracranial bleeding in the EMR identified 75.0% of patients with intracranial bleeding, but those of gastrointestinal bleeding and major joint bleeding identified only 11.1% and 1.7%, respectively.
conclusionWe developed and validated algorithms to identify congenital hemophilia A and hemophilia A-related events. Hemophilia A could be identified with high sensitivity and PPV, but it was still challenging to identify hemophilia A-related events.
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.