ArticleInternational journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature2022
Applying computable phenotypes within a common data model to identify heart failure patients for an implantable cardiac device registry.
Article in International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature, 2022. 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Common data models and data standards for tabular health data: a systematic review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Pooled it
- Predicting 30-Days Hospital Readmission for Patients with Heart Failure Using Electronic Health Record Embeddings: Comparative Evaluation.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
- Overcoming data challenges through enriched validation and targeted sampling to measure whole-person health in electronic health records.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2025Article
- 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUse of existing data in electronic health records (EHRs) could be used more extensively to better leverage real world data for clinical studies, but only if standard, reliable processes are developed. Numerous computable phenotypes have been validated against manual chart review, and common data models (CDMs) exist to aid implementation of such phenotypes across platforms and sites. Our objective was to measure consistency between data that had previously been manually collected for an implantable cardiac device registry and CDM-based phenotypes for the condition of heart failure (HF).
methodsPatients enrolled in an implantable cardiac device registry at two hospitals from 2013 to 2018 contributed to this analysis wherein registry data were compared to PCORnet CDM-formatted EHR data. Seven different phenotype algorithms were used to search for the presence of HF and compare the results with the registry. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive value and congruence were calculated for each phenotype.
resultsIn the registry, 176 of 319 (55%) patients had history of HF, compared with different phenotypes estimating between 96 (30%) and 188 (59%). The least-restrictive phenotypes (any diagnosis) had high sensitivity and specificity (90%/80%), but more restrictive phenotypes had higher specificity (e.g., code present in problem list, 94%). Differences were observed using time-based criteria (e.g., days between visit diagnoses) and between participating hospitals.
conclusionsConsistency between manually-collected registry data and CDM-based phenotypes for history of HF was high overall, but use of different phenotypes impacted sensitivity and specificity, and results may differ depending on the medical condition of interest.
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.