ReviewClinical epidemiology2025
Systematic Review and Development of Recommended Code Lists to Identify Smoking and Vaping Status in Electronic Health Records (EHR).
Review in Clinical epidemiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Vaping and smoking are important health behaviours associated with many diseases. Evaluating the association of smoking and vaping with diseases using electronic health record (EHR) data requires accurate codelists to determine smoking and vaping status. However, codelists used in studies are not always published or consistent between studies. It is important to develop standard codelists for use in future studies, and transparency is required to ensure consistency and standardization. Purpose: To provide an overview of the codes used in both peer-reviewed scientific literature and codelist repositories to identify smoking and vaping status in EHRs and derive a recommended codelist for use in EHRs to identify smoking and vaping status. Methods: Publications (MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus) and codelist repositories (LSHTM Data Compass, OpenCodelists, and the HDR UK Phenotype Library) were searched from January 2010 to April 2024. All publications or codelist repositories with codes referring to smoking/vaping status were included in this review (search terms are further addressed in Supplementary Table 1). All codes were extracted to review the frequency and consistency between studies. Results: There were 100 codelists across different coding systems: 55 codelists from publications and 45 codelists from codelist repository entries. For vaping status, there were 23 codelists identified, 7 from publications, and 16 from codelist repositories. Only 10% of publications included codelists. A limited number of ICD codes were used, and more were reported using the Read or SNOMED CT codes. The codelists we subsequently developed were based on those found in the review. Conclusion: Very few studies have reported the use of codelists despite smoking status being a widely used variable in many publications, and vaping status is increasing. Using the information from the review, we derived codelists for smoking and vaping using a transparent methodology that can be used in future studies.
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.