ArticleOrphanet journal of rare diseases2022
Development of algorithms to identify individuals with Neurofibromatosis type 1 within administrative data and electronic medical records in Ontario, Canada.
Article in Orphanet journal of rare diseases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Perspectives of Adult Patients and Caregivers on the Management and Challenges Associated with Neurofibromatosis Type 1 and Plexiform Neurofibromas: A Multinational Qualitative Survey.Neurology and therapy · 2026Article
- CMC-ID: identifying children and youth with medical complexity using an electronic health record.BMJ health & care informatics · 2026Article
- Healthcare utilization patterns and costs related to neurofibromatosis 1 in Ontario, Canada.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2026Article
- From genes to therapy: navigating the complex landscape of neurofibromatosis management in Canada through advanced diagnostic, targeted therapies, and holistic care.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2025Review
- Self-reported access to specialty clinics and receipt of health surveillance among U.S. patients with neurofibromatosis 1: a national survey.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2025Article
- Disease burden and unmet needs in adults with neurofibromatosis type 1 and plexiform neurofibromas: A systematic literature review.Neuro-oncology advancesReview
- Adult patient and caregiver perspectives on the impact of NF1-PN: Insights from a US qualitative survey.Neuro-oncology advancesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is limited population-based data on Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) in North America. We aimed to develop and validate algorithms using administrative health data and electronic medical records (EMRs) to identify individuals with NF1 in Ontario, Canada.
methodsWe conducted an electronic free-text search of 15 commonly-used terms related to NF1 in the Electronic Medical Records Primary Care Database. Records were reviewed by two trained abstractors who classified them as confirmed, possible, and not NF1. An investigator with clinical expertise performed final NF1 classification. Patients were classified as confirmed if there was a documented diagnosis, meeting NIH criteria. Patients were classified as possible if (1) NF1 was recorded in the cumulative patient profile, but no clinical information to support the diagnosis; (2) only one criterion for diagnosis (e.g. child of confirmed case) but no further data to confirm or rule out. We tested different combinations of outpatient and inpatient billing codes, and applied a free-text search algorithm to identify NF1 cases in administrative data and EMRs, respectively.
resultsOf 273,440 eligible patients, 2,058 had one or more NF1 terms in their medical records. The terms "NF", "café-au-lait", or "sheath tumour" were constrained to appear in combination with another NF1 term. This resulted in 837 patients: 37 with possible and 71 with confirmed NF1. The population prevalence ranged from 1 in 3851 (confirmed NF1) to 1 in 2532 (possible and confirmed NF1). Billing code algorithms had poor performance, with overall low PPV (highest being 71%). The accuracy of the free-text EMR algorithm in identifying patients with NF1 was: sensitivity 85% (95% CI 74-92%), specificity 100% (95% CI 100-100%), positive predictive value 80% (95% CI 69-88%), negative predictive value 100% (95% CI 100-100%), and false positive rate 20% (95% CI 11-33%). Of false positives, 53% were possible NF1.
conclusionsA free-text search algorithm within the EMR had high sensitivity, specificity and predictive values. Algorithms using billing codes had poor performance, likely due to the lack of NF-specific codes for outpatient visits. While NF1 ICD-9 and 10 codes are used for hospital admissions, only ~ 30% of confirmed NF1 cases had a hospitalization associated with an NF1 code.
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.