Dataset Information

How and when informative visit processes can bias inference when using electronic health records data for clinical research.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:Electronic health records (EHR) data have become a central data source for clinical research. One concern for using EHR data is that the process through which individuals engage with the health system, and find themselves within EHR data, can be informative. We have termed this process informed presence. In this study we use simulation and real data to assess how the informed presence can impact inference. MATERIALS AND METHODS:We first simulated a visit process where a series of biomarkers were observed informatively and uninformatively over time. We further compared inference derived from a randomized control trial (ie, uninformative visits) and EHR data (ie, potentially informative visits). RESULTS:We find that only when there is both a strong association between the biomarker and the outcome as well as the biomarker and the visit process is there bias. Moreover, once there are some uninformative visits this bias is mitigated. In the data example we find, that when the "true" associations are null, there is no observed bias. DISCUSSION:These results suggest that an informative visit process can exaggerate an association but cannot induce one. Furthermore, careful study design can, mitigate the potential bias when some noninformative visits are included. CONCLUSIONS:While there are legitimate concerns regarding biases that "messy" EHR data may induce, the conditions for such biases are extreme and can be accounted for.

SUBMITTER: Goldstein BA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6857502 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How and when informative visit processes can bias inference when using electronic health records data for clinical research.

Goldstein Benjamin A BA Phelan Matthew M Pagidipati Neha J NJ Peskoe Sarah B SB

Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA 20191201 12

<h4>Objective</h4>Electronic health records (EHR) data have become a central data source for clinical research. One concern for using EHR data is that the process through which individuals engage with the health system, and find themselves within EHR data, can be informative. We have termed this process informed presence. In this study we use simulation and real data to assess how the informed presence can impact inference.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>We first simulated a visit process where a ...[more]

PMID: 31553474

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLinkage of electronic healthcare records is becoming increasingly important for research purposes. However, linkage error due to mis-recorded or missing identifiers can lead to biased results. We evaluated the impact of linkage error on estimated infection rates using two different methods for classifying links: highest-weight (HW) classification using probabilistic match weights and prior-informed imputation (PII) using match probabilities.MethodsA gold-standard dataset was created through deterministic linkage of unique identifiers in admission data from two hospitals and infection data recorded at the hospital laboratories (original data). Unique identifiers were then removed and data were re-linked by date of birth, sex and Soundex using two classification methods: i) HW classification - accepting the candidate record with the highest weight exceeding a threshold and ii) PII-imputing values from a match probability distribution. To evaluate methods for linking data with different error rates, non-random error and different match rates, we generated simulation data. Each set of simulated files was linked using both classification methods. Infection rates in the linked data were compared with those in the gold-standard data.ResultsIn the original gold-standard data, 1496/20924 admissions linked to an infection. In the linked original data, PII provided least biased results: 1481 and 1457 infections (upper/lower thresholds) compared with 1316 and 1287 (HW upper/lower thresholds). In the simulated data, substantial bias (up to 112%) was introduced when linkage error varied by hospital. Bias was also greater when the match rate was low or the identifier error rate was high and in these cases, PII performed better than HW classification at reducing bias due to false-matches.ConclusionsThis study highlights the importance of evaluating the potential impact of linkage error on results. PII can help incorporate linkage uncertainty into analysis and reduce bias due to linkage error, without requiring identifiers.

Project description:The objective was to compare case ascertainment, agreement, validity, and missing values for clinical research data obtained, processed, and linked electronically from electronic health records (EHR) compared to "manual" data processing and record abstraction in a cohort of out-of-hospital trauma patients.? This was a secondary analysis of two sets of data collected for a prospective, population-based, out-of-hospital trauma cohort evaluated by 10 emergency medical services (EMS) agencies transporting to 16 hospitals, from January 1, 2006, through October 2, 2007. Eighteen clinical, operational, procedural, and outcome variables were collected and processed separately and independently using two parallel data processing strategies by personnel blinded to patients in the other group. The electronic approach included EHR data exports from EMS agencies, reformatting, and probabilistic linkage to outcomes from local trauma registries and state discharge databases. The manual data processing approach included chart matching, data abstraction, and data entry by a trained abstractor. Descriptive statistics, measures of agreement, and validity were used to compare the two approaches to data processing.? During the 21-month period, 418 patients underwent both data processing methods and formed the primary cohort. Agreement was good to excellent (kappa = 0.76 to 0.97; intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.49 to 0.97), with exact agreement in 67% to 99% of cases and a median difference of zero for all continuous and ordinal variables. The proportions of missing out-of-hospital values were similar between the two approaches, although electronic processing generated more missing outcomes (87 of 418, 21%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 17% to 25%) than the manual approach (11 of 418, 3%, 95% CI = 1% to 5%). Case ascertainment of eligible injured patients was greater using electronic methods (n = 3,008) compared to manual methods (n = 629).? In this sample of out-of-hospital trauma patients, an all-electronic data processing strategy identified more patients and generated values with good agreement and validity compared to traditional data collection and processing methods.

Dataset Information

How and when informative visit processes can bias inference when using electronic health records data for clinical research.

Publications

How and when informative visit processes can bias inference when using electronic health records data for clinical research.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets