ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2026
Using electronic health record data to identify incident uterine fibroids and endometriosis within a large, urban academic medical center: a validation study.
Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Positive predictive value of mpox diagnoses in French emergency departments: a retrospective validation study using the OSCOUR network.BMJ open · 2026Observational
- Emulating a target trial of surgical removal of uterine fibroids on atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.Fertility and sterility · 2026Article
- Advancing the frontiers of phytotherapy: a comprehensive review of botanical interventions targeting mitochondrial quality control to ameliorate endometriosis.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Review
- Dual-port laparoscopic myomectomy: a balanced yet potentially more optimal surgical approach.Frontiers in medicine · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Electronic health records (EHRs) present opportunities to study uterine fibroids and endometriosis within diverse populations. When using EHR data, it is important to validate outcome classification via diagnosis codes. We performed a validation study of 3 approaches ([1] International Classification of Diseases-10 (ICD-10) code alone, [2] ICD-10 code + diagnostic procedure, and [3] ICD-10 code + all diagnostic information) to identify incident uterine fibroids and endometriosis patients among n = 750 NYU Langone Health 2016-2023. Chart review was used to determine the true diagnosis status. When using a binary classification system (incident vs nonincident patient), Approaches 2 and 3 had higher positive predictive values (PPVs) for uterine fibroids (0.86 and 0.87 vs 0.78) and for endometriosis (0.70 and 0.73 vs 0.66), but Approach 1 outperformed the other 2 in negative predictive values (NPVs) for both outcomes. When using a 3-level classification system (incident vs prevalent vs disease-free patients), PPV for prevalent patients was low for all approaches, while PPV/NPV of disease-free patients was generally above 0.8. Using ICD-10 codes alone yielded higher NPVs but resulted in lower PPVs compared with the other approaches. Continued validation of uterine fibroids/endometriosis EHR studies is warranted to increase research into these understudied gynecologic conditions.
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.