Dataset Information

Code sets for respiratory symptoms in electronic health records research: a systematic review protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Asthma 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 analysis

MEDLINE 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 dissemination

As 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 number

CRD42018100830.

SUBMITTER: Jayatunga W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6443061 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

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.