Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35633659›Full record

ArticleClinical epidemiology2022

Development and Validation of Algorithms to Identify COVID-19 Patients Using a US Electronic Health Records Database: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Carolyn A Brown, Ajit A Londhe, Fang He, Alvan Cheng, Junjie Ma, Jie Zhang, Corinne G Brooks, J Michael Sprafka, Kimberly A Roehl, Katherine B Carlson and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical epidemiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

11 authors.

Carolyn A BrownCenter for Observational Research, Amgen, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9421-0185
Ajit A LondheCenter for Observational Research, Amgen, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.
Fang HeCenter for Observational Research, Amgen, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4185-9079
Alvan ChengCenter for Observational Research, Amgen, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.
Junjie MaCenter for Observational Research, Amgen, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.
Jie ZhangCenter for Observational Research, Amgen, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.
Corinne G BrooksCenter for Observational Research, Amgen, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.
J Michael SprafkaCenter for Observational Research, Amgen, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.
Kimberly A RoehlCenter for Observational Research, Amgen, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.
Katherine B CarlsonCenter for Observational Research, Amgen, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.
John H PageCenter for Observational Research, Amgen, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: In order to identify and evaluate candidate algorithms to detect COVID-19 cases in an electronic health record (EHR) database, this study examined and compared the utilization of acute respiratory disease codes from February to August 2020 versus the corresponding time period in the 3 years preceding. Methods: De-identified EHR data were used to identify codes of interest for candidate algorithms to identify COVID-19 patients. The number and proportion of patients who received a SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) within ±10 days of the occurrence of the diagnosis code and patients who tested positive among those with a test result were calculated, resulting in 11 candidate algorithms. Sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios assessed the candidate algorithms by clinical setting and time period. We adjusted for potential verification bias by weighting by the reciprocal of the estimated probability of verification. Results: From January to March 2020, the most commonly used diagnosis codes related to COVID-19 diagnosis were R06 (dyspnea) and R05 (cough). On or after April 1, 2020, the code with highest sensitivity for COVID-19, U07.1, had near perfect adjusted sensitivity (1.00 [95% CI 1.00, 1.00]) but low adjusted specificity (0.32 [95% CI 0.31, 0.33]) in hospitalized patients. Discussion: Algorithms based on the U07.1 code had high sensitivity among hospitalized patients, but low specificity, especially after April 2020. None of the combinations of ICD-10-CM codes assessed performed with a satisfactory combination of high sensitivity and high specificity when using the SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR as the reference standard.

Indexed as

COVID-19epidemiologySARS-CoV-2validationverification bias

Identifiers

PMID35633659
PMCPMC9139367

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.