Observational studyArthritis care & research2026
Identification of Adult Patients With Dermatomyositis Using Real-World Data Sources.
Observational study in Arthritis care & research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveStudying rare diseases like dermatomyositis (DM) in single-center cohorts is challenging due to small sample sizes and limited generalizability. This study develops and evaluates case identification algorithms for DM to enable coordinated analysis across multiple data sources.
methodsCase identification algorithms were developed to identify adult patients with DM within 11 independent electronic health record or claims databases, totaling over 800 million patients, using the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model. Algorithm performance was assessed through manual chart review and using Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics open-source tools (CohortDiagnostics and PheValuator), which quantify incidence rates and performance metrics such as sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV).
resultsEight DM case identification algorithms were evaluated across 11 databases, revealing significant variability in performance, with sensitivity and PPV differing by more than 30% between some databases. Overall, we identified one incidence algorithm and one prevalence algorithm with good performance, demonstrated by sensitivity rates of 42% and 49% and PPV values of 83% and 84%, respectively. PheValuator quantified algorithm performance within each database, allowing for direct comparison of different criteria. Additionally, CohortDiagnostics generated incidence rates stratified by age decile and sex, aligning with previous epidemiologic data.
conclusionWe developed and validated multiple DM case identification algorithms across diverse databases, demonstrating their accuracy through multiple evaluation methods. This approach enables more generalizable, reproducible research using real-world data and can be applied to other rheumatic diseases.
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.