Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36921287›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2023

Validation of an administrative algorithm for transgender and gender diverse persons against self-report data in electronic health records.

Carl G Streed, Dana King, Chris Grasso, Sari L Reisner, Kenneth H Mayer, Guneet K Jasuja, Tonia Poteat, Monica Mukherjee, Ayelet Shapira-Daniels, Howard Cabral and 3 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. A scoping review of models to identify transgender patients in electronic health records.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

13 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.

Carl G StreedSection of General Internal Medicine, Boston University Chobanian and Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Dana KingThe Fenway Institute, Fenway Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Chris GrassoThe Fenway Institute, Fenway Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Sari L ReisnerThe Fenway Institute, Fenway Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Kenneth H MayerThe Fenway Institute, Fenway Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Guneet K JasujaSection of General Internal Medicine, Boston University Chobanian and Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Tonia PoteatDepartment of Social Medicine, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Monica MukherjeeDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Ayelet Shapira-DanielsDepartment of Medicine, Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4920-2397
Howard CabralDepartment of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Vin TangprichaDivision of Endocrinology, Metabolism & Lipids, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Michael K Paasche-OrlowDepartment of Medicine, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Emelia J BenjaminSection of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine and Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4076-2336
Boston University · USFenway Health · USBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center · USBoston Medical Center · USBrigham and Women's Hospital · USEmory University · USJohns Hopkins University · USTufts Medical Center · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

IDENTIFICATION OF COMMON GENETIC VARIANTS FOR ATRIAL FIBRILLATION AND PR INTERVALR01HL092577 · NHLBI · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI BENJAMIN, EMELIA J., ELLINOR, PATRICK THOMAS · 2009 to 2025
$20.6M
FHS-NEXT - Framingham Novel EXam using TechnologyR01HL141434 · NHLBI · BOSTON UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CAMPUS · PI BENJAMIN, EMELIA J., MCMANUS, DAVID D. · 2019 to 2022
$2.5M
Building methods to assess and address cardiovascular health in transgender adultsK01HL151902 · NHLBI · BOSTON MEDICAL CENTER · PI Carl G Streed · 2021 to 2026
$863k
American Heart Association-American Stroke Association AHA_18SFRN34110082Doris Duke Charitable Foundation 2022061NHLBI NIH HHS K01 HL151902NHLBI NIH HHS NHLBI 1K01HL151902-01A1NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL092577NHLBI NIH HHS R01HL092577NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL141434
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo adapt and validate an algorithm to ascertain transgender and gender diverse (TGD) patients within electronic health record (EHR) data.

methodsUsing a previously unvalidated algorithm of identifying TGD persons within administrative claims data in a multistep, hierarchical process, we validated this algorithm in an EHR data set with self-reported gender identity.

resultsWithin an EHR data set of 52 746 adults with self-reported gender identity (gold standard) a previously unvalidated algorithm to identify TGD persons via TGD-related diagnosis and procedure codes, and gender-affirming hormone therapy prescription data had a sensitivity of 87.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 86.4-88.2), specificity of 98.7% (95% CI 98.6-98.8), positive predictive value (PPV) of 88.7% (95% CI 87.9-89.4), and negative predictive value (NPV) of 98.5% (95% CI 98.4-98.6). The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.930 (95% CI 0.925-0.935). Steps to further categorize patients as presumably TGD men versus women based on prescription data performed well: sensitivity of 97.6%, specificity of 92.7%, PPV of 93.2%, and NPV of 97.4%. The AUC was 0.95 (95% CI 0.94-0.96).

conclusionsIn the absence of self-reported gender identity data, an algorithm to identify TGD patients in administrative data using TGD-related diagnosis and procedure codes, and gender-affirming hormone prescriptions performs well.

Indexed as

Transgender PersonsAdultAlgorithmsElectronic Health RecordsFemaleGender IdentityHormonesHumansMaleSelf ReportHormonesdiagnosis codeselectronic health recordgender identitytransgender

Identifiers

PMID36921287
PMCPMC10198536
OpenAlexW4324321257

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.