Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35438796›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2022

Informative presence bias in analyses of electronic health records-derived data: a cautionary note.

Joanna Harton, Nandita Mitra, Rebecca A Hubbard

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Rare Genetic Variants inCirculation · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Inherent Bias in Electronic Health Records: A Scoping Review of Sources of Bias.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

Joanna HartonDepartment of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7626-9466
Nandita MitraDepartment of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Rebecca A HubbardDepartment of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Funding

Improving confounder control in EHR-based studies of cancer epidemiologyR21CA227613 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI HUBBARD, REBECCA · 2019 to 2020
$474k
NCI NIH HHS R21 CA227613
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveElectronic health record (EHR)-derived data are extensively used in health research. However, the pattern of patient interaction with the healthcare system can result in informative presence bias if those who have poorer health have more data recorded than healthier patients. We aimed to determine how informative presence affects bias across multiple scenarios informed by real-world healthcare utilization patterns. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe conducted an analysis of EHR data from a pediatric healthcare system as well as simulation studies to characterize conditions under which informative presence bias is likely to occur. This analysis extends prior work by examining a variety of scenarios for the relationship between a biomarker and a health event of interest and the healthcare visit process.

resultsUsing biomarker values gathered at both informative and noninformative visits when estimating the effect of the biomarker on the event of interest resulted in minimal bias when the biomarker was relatively stable over time but produced substantial bias when the biomarker was more volatile. Adjusting analyses for the number of prior visits within a fixed look-back window was able to reduce but not eliminate this bias. DISCUSSION: These results suggest that bias may arise frequently in commonly encountered scenarios and may not be eliminated by adjusting for prior visit intensity.

conclusionDepending on the context, the estimated effect from analyses using data from all visits available may diverge from the true effect. Sensitivity analyses using only visits likely to be informative or noninformative based on visit type may aid in the assessment of the magnitude of potential bias.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsBiasChildComputer SimulationHumansbiaselectronic health recordslongitudinal datamisclassificationsurvival analysis

Identifiers

PMID35438796
PMCPMC9196698

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.