ArticleACR open rheumatology2026
Development and Validation of Algorithms for Systemic Sclerosis Identification in Electronic Health Record Data.
Article in ACR open rheumatology, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to develop and validate International Classification of Diseases (ICD) code-based algorithms for identifying systemic sclerosis (SSc) cases within electronic health record (EHR) data and to evaluate algorithm performance.
methodsWe identified patients with at least one ICD, Ninth Revision (ICD-9)/ICD-10 code for SSc in a large multicenter EHR dataset (TriNetX Research Network). A random sample of patients underwent detailed medical record review to confirm SSc diagnosis (gold standard). All ICD-9/10 codes assigned during inpatient or outpatient encounters and corresponding dates were extracted. SSc case status derived from seven prespecified algorithms was compared with the gold standard by calculating sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and receiver operating characteristic analyses.
resultsMedical records from 549 of 1,098 patients with at least one SSc ICD-9/10 code were reviewed; 399 (72.7%) were confirmed SSc cases. The algorithm requiring at least two outpatient ICD-9/10 SSc codes at least 30 days apart with exclusion of scleroderma mimics within 24 months demonstrated the best overall performance (sensitivity 96%, specificity 71%, PPV 90%, NPV 87%, and area under the curve 0.91). Algorithms based on at least one inpatient ICD-9/10 code showed high specificity (91%) and PPV (93%) but poor sensitivity (45%) and NPV (38%). Adding inpatient codes to the outpatient code-based algorithms did not improve performance.
conclusionAn algorithm requiring at least two outpatient SSc ICD-9/10 codes ≥30 days apart without scleroderma mimics within 24 months reliably identifies SSc cases. This readily implementable approach outperforms previously published more complex algorithms and supports valid clinical and epidemiologic research in large datasets.
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.