Validation of asthma recording in electronic health records: protocol for a systematic review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Asthma is a common, heterogeneous disease with significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. It can be difficult to define in epidemiological studies using electronic health records as the diagnosis is based on non-specific respiratory symptoms and spirometry, neither of which are routinely registered. Electronic health records can nonetheless be valuable to study the epidemiology, management, healthcare use and control of asthma. For health databases to be useful sources of information, asthma diagnoses should ideally be validated. The primary objectives are to provide an overview of the methods used to validate asthma diagnoses in electronic health records and summarise the results of the validation studies.Methods
EMBASE and MEDLINE will be systematically searched for appropriate search terms. The searches will cover all studies in these databases up to October 2016 with no start date and will yield studies that have validated algorithms or codes for the diagnosis of asthma in electronic health records. At least one test validation measure (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value or other) is necessary for inclusion. In addition, we require the validated algorithms to be compared with an external golden standard, such as a manual review, a questionnaire or an independent second database. We will summarise key data including author, year of publication, country, time period, date, data source, population, case characteristics, clinical events, algorithms, gold standard and validation statistics in a uniform table.Ethics and dissemination
This study is a synthesis of previously published studies and, therefore, no ethical approval is required. The results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication. Results from this systematic review can be used to study outcome research on asthma and can be used to identify case definitions for asthma.Prospero registration number
CRD42016041798.
SUBMITTER: Nissen F
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5729974 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionMany patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) experience a sustained worsening in symptoms termed an acute exacerbation (AECOPD). AECOPDs impact on patients' quality of life and lung function, are costly to health services and are an important topic for research. Electronic health records (EHR) are increasingly being used to study AECOPD, requiring accurate detection of AECOPD in EHRs to ensure generalisable results. The aim of this protocol is to provide an overview of studies that validate AECOPD definitions used in EHRs and administrative claims databases.Methods and analysisMedline and Embase will be searched for terms related to COPD exacerbation, EHRs and validation. All studies published between 1 January 1990 and 30 September 2019 written in English that validate AECOPD in EHRs and administrative claims databases will be considered.Inclusion criteriaEHR data must be routinely collected; the AECOPD detection algorithm must be compared against a reference standard; and a measure of validity must be calculable. Two independent reviewers will screen articles for inclusion, extract study details and assess risk of bias using QUADAS-2. Disagreements will be resolved by consensus or arbitration by a third reviewer. This protocol has been developed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols checklist.Ethics and disseminationThis will be a review of previously published literature therefore no ethical approval is required. Results from this review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. The results can be used in future research to identify occurrences of AECOPD.Prospero registration numberCRD42019130863.
| S-EPMC7050350 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionAsthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are common respiratory conditions, which result in significant morbidity worldwide. These conditions are associated with a range of non-specific symptoms, which in themselves are a target for health research. Such research is increasingly being conducted using electronic health records (EHRs), but computable phenotype definitions, in the form of code sets or code lists, are required to extract structured data from these large routine databases in a systematic and reproducible way. The aim of this protocol is to specify a systematic review to identify code sets for respiratory symptoms in EHRs research.Methods and analysisMEDLINE and Embase databases will be searched using terms relating to EHRs, respiratory symptoms and use of code sets. The search will cover all English-language studies in these databases between January 1990 and December 2017. Two reviewers will independently screen identified studies for inclusion, and key data will be extracted into a uniform table, facilitating cross-comparison of codes used. Disagreements between the reviewers will be adjudicated by a third reviewer. This protocol has been produced in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocol guidelines.Ethics and disseminationAs a review of previously published studies, no ethical approval is required. The results of this review will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication and can be used in future research into respiratory symptoms that uses electronic healthcare databases.Prospero registration numberCRD42018100830.
| S-EPMC6443061 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAs the availability of interoperable electronic health records (iEHRs) or health information exchanges (HIEs) continues to increase, there is greater need and opportunity to assess the current evidence base on what works and what does not regarding the adoption, use, and impact of iEHRs.ObjectiveThe purpose of this project is to assess the international evidence base on the adoption, use, and impact of iEHRs.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review, searching multiple databases-MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL)-with supplemental searches conducted in Google Scholar and grey literature sources (ie, Google, Grey Literature Report, and OpenGrey). All searches were conducted in January and February 2017. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they were published in English, were published from 2006 to 2017, and were either an original research study or a literature review. In order to be included, articles needed to focus on iEHRs and HIEs across multiple health care settings, as well as on the impact and effectiveness of iEHR adoption and use.ResultsWe included 130 articles in the synthesis (113 primary studies, 86.9%; 17 reviews, 13.1%), with the majority focused on the United States (88/130, 67.7%). The primary studies focused on a wide range of health care settings; the three most prevalent settings studied included acute care (59/113, 52.2%), primary care (44/113, 38.9%), and emergency departments (34/113, 30.1%). We identified 29 distinct measurement items in the 113 primary studies that were linked to 522 specific measurement outcomes. Productivity and quality were the two evaluation dimensions that received the most attention, accounting for 14 of 29 (48%) measurement items and 306 of 522 (58.6%) measurement outcomes identified. Overall, the majority of the 522 measurement outcomes were positive (298/522, 57.1%). We also identified 17 reviews on iEHR use and impact, 6 (35%) that focused on barriers and facilitators to adoption and implementation and 11 (65%) that focused on benefits and impacts, with the more recent reviews finding little generalizable evidence of benefit and impact.ConclusionsThis review captures the status of an evolving and active field focused on the use and impact of iEHRs. While the overall findings suggest many positive impacts, the quality of the primary studies were not evaluated systematically. When broken down by specific measurement item, the results directed attention both to measurement outcomes that were consistently positive and others that were mostly negative or equivocal.
| S-EPMC6592487 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionCardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are among the leading causes of death globally. Electronic health records (EHRs) provide a rich data source for research on CVD risk factors, treatments and outcomes. Researchers must be confident in the validity of diagnoses in EHRs, particularly when diagnosis definitions and use of EHRs change over time. Our systematic review provides an up-to-date appraisal of the validity of stroke, acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and heart failure (HF) diagnoses in European primary and secondary care EHRs.Methods and analysisWe will systematically review the published and grey literature to identify studies validating diagnoses of stroke, ACS and HF in European EHRs. MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, OpenGrey and EThOS will be searched from the dates of inception to April 2019. A prespecified search strategy of subject headings and free-text terms in the title and abstract will be used. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts to identify eligible studies, followed by full-text review. We require studies to compare clinical codes with a suitable reference standard. Additionally, at least one validation measure (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value or negative predictive value) or raw data, for the calculation of a validation measure, is necessary. We will then extract data from the eligible studies using standardised tables and assess risk of bias in individual studies using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. Data will be synthesised into a narrative format and heterogeneity assessed. Meta-analysis will be considered when a sufficient number of homogeneous studies are available. The overall quality of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation tool.Ethics and disseminationThis is a systematic review, so it does not require ethical approval. Our results will be submitted for peer-review publication.Prospero registration numberCRD42019123898.
| S-EPMC6803089 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe amount of time that health care clinicians (physicians and nurses) spend interacting with the electronic health record is not well understood.ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the time that health care providers spend interacting with electronic health records (EHR).MethodsData are retrieved from Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily, (Ovid) Embase, CINAHL, and SCOPUS.Study eligibility criteriaPeer-reviewed studies that describe the use of EHR and include measurement of time either in hours, minutes, or in the percentage of a clinician's workday. Papers were written in English and published between 1990 and 2021.ParticipantsAll physicians and nurses involved in inpatient and outpatient settings.Study appraisal and synthesis methodsA narrative synthesis of the results, providing summaries of interaction time with EHR. The studies were rated according to Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs.ResultsOut of 5,133 de-duplicated references identified through database searching, 18 met inclusion criteria. Most were time-motion studies (50%) that followed by logged-based analysis (44%). Most were conducted in the United States (94%) and examined a clinician workflow in the inpatient settings (83%). The average time was nearly 37% of time of their workday by physicians in both inpatient and outpatient settings and 22% of the workday by nurses in inpatient settings. The studies showed methodological heterogeneity.ConclusionThis systematic review evaluates the time that health care providers spend interacting with EHR. Interaction time with EHR varies depending on clinicians' roles and clinical settings, computer systems, and users' experience. The average time spent by physicians on EHR exceeded one-third of their workday. The finding is a possible indicator that the EHR has room for usability, functionality improvement, and workflow optimization.
| S-EPMC8387128 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Long-term care (LTC) facilities are an important part of the health care industry, providing care to the fastest-growing group of the population. However, the adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) in LTC facilities lags behind other areas of the health care industry. One of the reasons for the lack of widespread adoption in the United States is that LTC facilities are not eligible for incentives under the Meaningful Use program. Implementation of an EHR system in an LTC facility can potentially enhance the quality of care, provided it is appropriately implemented, used, and maintained. Unfortunately, the lag in adoption of the EHR in LTC creates a paucity of literature on the benefits of EHR implementation in LTC facilities.The objective of this systematic review was to identify the potential benefits of implementing an EHR system in LTC facilities. The study also aims to identify the common conditions and EHR features that received favorable remarks from providers and the discrepancies that needed improvement to build up momentum across LTC settings in adopting this technology.The authors conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), and MEDLINE databases. Papers were analyzed by multiple referees to filter out studies not germane to our research objective. A final sample of 28 papers was selected to be included in the systematic review.Results of this systematic review conclude that EHRs show significant improvement in the management of documentation in LTC facilities and enhanced quality outcomes. Approximately 43% (12/28) of the papers reported a mixed impact of EHRs on the management of documentation, and 33% (9/28) of papers reported positive quality outcomes using EHRs. Surprisingly, very few papers demonstrated an impact on patient satisfaction, physician satisfaction, the length of stay, and productivity using EHRs.Overall, implementation of EHRs has been found to be effective in the few LTC facilities that have implemented them. Implementation of EHRs in LTC facilities caused improved management of clinical documentation that enabled better decision making.
| S-EPMC5640822 | biostudies-other
Project description:IntroductionThe availability and routine use of electronic health records (EHRs) have become commonplace in healthcare systems of many high-income countries. While there is an ever-growing body of literature pertaining to their use, evidence surrounding the importance of EHR interoperability and its impact on patient safety remains less clear. There is, therefore, a need and opportunity to evaluate the evidence available regarding this relationship so as to better inform health informatics development and policies in the years to come. This systematic review aims to evaluate the impact of EHR interoperability on patient safety in health systems of high-income countries.Methods and analysisA systematic literature review will be conducted via a computerised search through four databases: PubMed, Embase, Health Management Information Consortium and PsycInfo for relevant articles published between 2010 and 2020. Outcomes of interest will include impact on patient safety and the broader effects on health systems. Quality of the randomised quantitative studies will be assessed using Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Non-randomised papers will be evaluated with the Risk of Bias In Non-Randomised Studies-of Interventions tool. Drummond's Checklist will be used for publications pertaining to economic evaluation. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence quality appraisal checklist will be used to assess qualitative studies. A narrative synthesis will be conducted for included studies, and the body of evidence will be summarised in a summary of findings table.Ethics and disseminationThis review will summarise published studies with non-identifiable data and, thus, does not require ethical approval. Findings will be disseminated through preprints, open access peer-reviewed publications, and conference presentations.Prospero registration numberCRD42020209285.
| S-EPMC8280868 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionEffective electronic health record (EHR)-based training interventions facilitate improved EHR use for healthcare providers. One such training intervention is simulation-based training that emphasises learning actual tasks through experimentation in a risk-free environment without negative patient outcomes. EHR-specific simulation-based training can be employed to improve EHR use, thereby enhancing healthcare providers' skills and behaviours. Despite the potential advantages of this type of training, no study has identified and mapped the available evidence. To fill that gap, this scoping review will synthesise the current state of literature on EHR simulation-based training.Methods and analysisThe Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework will be employed. Three databases (PubMed, Embase and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) will be searched for published articles. ProQuest and Google Scholar will be searched to identify unpublished articles. Databases will be searched from inception to 29 January 2020. Only articles written in English, randomised control trials, cohort studies, cross-sectional studies and case-control studies will be considered for inclusion. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts against inclusion and exclusion criteria. Then, they will review full texts to determine articles for final inclusion. Citation chaining will be conducted to manually screen references of all included studies to identify additional studies not found by the search. A data abstraction form with relevant characteristics will be developed to help address the research question. Descriptive numerical analysis will be used to describe characteristics of included studies. Based on the extracted data, research evidence of EHR simulation-based training will be synthesised.Ethics and disseminationSince no primary data will be collected, there will be no formal ethical review. Research findings will be disseminated through publications, presentations and meetings with relevant stakeholders.
| S-EPMC7422637 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAsthma is the most common pediatric chronic disease; thus, clinical guidelines have been developed for its assessment and management, which rely on systematic symptom documentation. Electronic health records (EHR) have the potential to record clinical data systematically; however, variability in documentation persists.ObjectiveTo identify if the use of a structured asthma template is associated with increased guideline-based asthma documentation and clinical outcomes when compared with the use of nonstructured ones.MethodsWe performed a retrospective case-control study comparing the use of nonstructured templates (NSTs) and asthma-structured templates (ASTs) in new patient and first follow-up encounters, evaluated by pediatric pulmonologists between March 2016 and December 2021. Asthma history items were selected following clinical guidelines, summarized in 29 items for new and 22 items for follow-up encounters. Associations with demographic, spirometry, and health care utilization were explored.ResultsA total of 546 initial encounters were included; 450 used structured templates. The use of an AST was associated with higher documentation of asthma items in initial and follow-up encounters. Linear regression analysis showed that the use of ASTs was associated with a 28.2% and 39.65% increase in asthma history completeness (in initial and follow-up encounters, respectively), compared with the use of NSTs. AST use was associated with higher rates of systemic steroid prescriptions within 12 months. No other differences were observed after adjusting for asthma severity.ConclusionsUsing asthma-specific structured templates was associated with increased guideline-based asthma documentation. Leveraging the EHR as a clinical and research tool has the potential to improve clinical practice.
| S-EPMC10851708 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivePeople with long-term conditions require serial clinical assessments. Digital patient-reported symptoms collected between visits can inform these, especially if integrated into electronic health records (EHRs) and clinical workflows. This systematic review identified and summarized EHR-integrated systems to remotely collect patient-reported symptoms and examined their anticipated and realized benefits in long-term conditions.Materials and methodsWe searched Medline, Web of Science, and Embase. Inclusion criteria were symptom reporting systems in adults with long-term conditions; data integrated into the EHR; data collection outside of clinic; data used in clinical care. We synthesized data thematically. Benefits were assessed against a list of outcome indicators. We critically appraised studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.ResultsWe included 12 studies representing 10 systems. Seven were in oncology. Systems were technically and functionally heterogeneous, with the majority being fully integrated (data viewable in the EHR). Half of the systems enabled regular symptom tracking between visits. We identified 3 symptom report-guided clinical workflows: Consultation-only (data used during consultation, n = 5), alert-based (real-time alerts for providers, n = 4) and patient-initiated visits (n = 1). Few author-described anticipated benefits, primarily to improve communication and resultant health outcomes, were realized based on the study results, and were only supported by evidence from early-stage qualitative studies. Studies were primarily feasibility and pilot studies of acceptable quality.Discussion and conclusionsEHR-integrated remote symptom monitoring is possible, but there are few published efforts to inform development of these systems. Currently there is limited evidence that this improves care and outcomes, warranting future robust, quantitative studies of efficacy and effectiveness.
| S-EPMC7671621 | biostudies-literature