Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35242997›Full record

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.

Jove Graham, Andy Iverson, Joao Monteiro, Katherine Weiner, Kara Southall, Katherine Schiller, Mudit Gupta, Edgar P Simard

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jove GrahamCenter for Pharmacy Innovation and Outcomes, Geisinger Clinic, Danville, PA, USA.
Andy IversonGlobal Clinical Research and Analytics Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Joao MonteiroGlobal Clinical Research and Analytics Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Katherine WeinerGlobal Clinical Research and Analytics Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Kara SouthallGlobal Clinical Research and Analytics Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Katherine SchillerGlobal Clinical Research and Analytics Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Mudit GuptaPhenomic Analytics and Clinical Data Core, Geisinger Clinic, Danville, PA, USA.
Edgar P SimardGlobal Clinical Research and Analytics Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Medtronic (United States) · USGeisinger Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Clinical trialCommon data modelComorbidities heart failureComputable phenotypeElectronic health recordRegistry

Identifiers

PMID35242997
PMCPMC8861122
OpenAlexW4213204953

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.