Dataset Information

Identifying Parkinson's disease and parkinsonism cases using routinely collected healthcare data: A systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Population-based, prospective studies can provide important insights into Parkinson's disease (PD) and other parkinsonian disorders. Participant follow-up in such studies is often achieved through linkage to routinely collected healthcare datasets. We systematically reviewed the published literature on the accuracy of these datasets for this purpose.

Methods

We searched four electronic databases for published studies that compared PD and parkinsonism cases identified using routinely collected data to a reference standard. We extracted study characteristics and two accuracy measures: positive predictive value (PPV) and/or sensitivity.

Results

We identified 18 articles, resulting in 27 measures of PPV and 14 of sensitivity. For PD, PPV ranged from 56-90% in hospital datasets, 53-87% in prescription datasets, 81-90% in primary care datasets and was 67% in mortality datasets. Combining diagnostic and medication codes increased PPV. For parkinsonism, PPV ranged from 36-88% in hospital datasets, 40-74% in prescription datasets, and was 94% in mortality datasets. Sensitivity ranged from 15-73% in single datasets for PD and 43-63% in single datasets for parkinsonism.

Conclusions

In many settings, routinely collected datasets generate good PPVs and reasonable sensitivities for identifying PD and parkinsonism cases. However, given the wide range of identified accuracy estimates, we recommend cohorts conduct their own context-specific validation studies if existing evidence is lacking. Further research is warranted to investigate primary care and medication datasets, and to develop algorithms that balance a high PPV with acceptable sensitivity.

SUBMITTER: Harding Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6354966 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Introduction: Achieving equity in health care remains a challenge for health care systems worldwide and marked inequities in access and quality of care persist. Identifying health care equity indicators is an important first step in integrating the concept of equity into assessments of health care system performance, particularly in emergency care. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of administrative data-derived health care equity indicators and their association with socioeconomic determinants of health (SEDH) in emergency care settings. Following PRISMA-Equity reporting guidelines, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science were searched for relevant studies. The outcomes of interest were indicators of health care equity and the associated SEDH they examine. Results: Among 29 studies identified, 14 equity indicators were identified and grouped into four categories that reflect the patient emergency care pathway. Total emergency department (ED) visits and ambulatory care-sensitive condition-related ED visits were the two most frequently used equity indicators. The studies analyzed equity based on seven SEDH: social deprivation, income, education level, social class, insurance coverage, health literacy, and financial and nonfinancial barriers. Despite some conflicting results, all identified SEDH are associated with inequalities in access to and use of emergency care. Conclusion: The use of administrative data-derived indicators in combination with identified SEDH could improve the measurement of health care equity in emergency care settings across health care systems worldwide. Using a combination of indicators is likely to lead to a more comprehensive, well-rounded measurement of health care equity than using any one indicator in isolation. Although studies analyzed focused on emergency care settings, it seems possible to extrapolate these indicators to measure equity in other areas of the health care system. Further studies elucidating root causes of health inequities in and outside the health care system are needed.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Intensive care units (ICUs) face financial, bed management, and staffing constraints. Detailed data covering all aspects of patients' journeys into and through intensive care are now collected and stored in electronic health records: machine learning has been used to analyse such data in order to provide decision support to clinicians. METHODS:Systematic review of the applications of machine learning to routinely collected ICU data. Web of Science and MEDLINE databases were searched to identify candidate articles: those on image processing were excluded. The study aim, the type of machine learning used, the size of dataset analysed, whether and how the model was validated, and measures of predictive accuracy were extracted. RESULTS:Of 2450 papers identified, 258 fulfilled eligibility criteria. The most common study aims were predicting complications (77 papers [29.8% of studies]), predicting mortality (70 [27.1%]), improving prognostic models (43 [16.7%]), and classifying sub-populations (29 [11.2%]). Median sample size was 488 (IQR 108-4099): 41 studies analysed data on > 10,000 patients. Analyses focused on 169 (65.5%) papers that used machine learning to predict complications, mortality, length of stay, or improvement of health. Predictions were validated in 161 (95.2%) of these studies: the area under the ROC curve (AUC) was reported by 97 (60.2%) but only 10 (6.2%) validated predictions using independent data. The median AUC was 0.83 in studies of 1000-10,000 patients, rising to 0.94 in studies of > 100,000 patients. The most common machine learning methods were neural networks (72 studies [42.6%]), support vector machines (40 [23.7%]), and classification/decision trees (34 [20.1%]). Since 2015 (125 studies [48.4%]), the most common methods were support vector machines (37 studies [29.6%]) and random forests (29 [23.2%]). CONCLUSIONS:The rate of publication of studies using machine learning to analyse routinely collected ICU data is increasing rapidly. The sample sizes used in many published studies are too small to exploit the potential of these methods. Methodological and reporting guidelines are needed, particularly with regard to the choice of method and validation of predictions, to increase confidence in reported findings and aid in translating findings towards routine use in clinical practice.