ArticleBMJ public health2024
Addressing Selection Biases within Electronic Health Record Data for Estimation of Diabetes Prevalence among New York City Young Adults: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in BMJ public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Defining Prenatal Care Surveillance Metrics Using Electronic Health Record Data.JAMA health forum · 2026Article
- A practical guide for nephrologist peer reviewers: evaluating artificial intelligence and machine learning research in nephrology.Renal failure · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: There is growing interest in using electronic health records (EHRs) for chronic disease surveillance. However, these data are convenience samples of in-care individuals, which are not representative of target populations for public health surveillance, generally defined, for the relevant period, as resident populations within city, state, or other jurisdictions. We focus on using EHR data for estimation of diabetes prevalence among young adults in New York City, as rising diabetes burden in younger ages call for better surveillance capacity. Methods: This article applies common nonprobability sampling methods, including raking, post-stratification, and multilevel regression with post-stratification, to real and simulated data for the cross-sectional estimation of diabetes prevalence among those aged 18-44 years. Within real data analyses, we externally validate city- and neighborhood-level EHR-based estimates to gold-standard estimates from a local health survey. Within data simulations, we probe the extent to which residual biases remain when selection into the EHR sample is non-ignorable. Results: Within the real data analyses, these methods reduced the impact of selection biases in the citywide prevalence estimate compared to gold standard. Residual biases remained at the neighborhood-level, where prevalence tended to be overestimated, especially in neighborhoods where a higher proportion of residents were captured in the sample. Simulation results demonstrated these methods may be sufficient, except when selection into the EHR is non-ignorable, depending on unmeasured factors or on diabetes status. Conclusions: While EHRs offer potential to innovate on chronic disease surveillance, care is needed when estimating prevalence for small geographies or when selection is non-ignorable.
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.