Dataset Information

ACCOUNTING FOR DEPENDENT ERRORS IN PREDICTORS AND TIME-TO-EVENT OUTCOMES USING ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS, VALIDATION SAMPLES, AND MULTIPLE IMPUTATION

ABSTRACT: Data from electronic health records (EHR) are prone to errors, which are often correlated across multiple variables. The error structure is further complicated when analysis variables are derived as functions of two or more error-prone variables. Such errors can substantially impact estimates, yet we are unaware of methods that simultaneously account for errors in covariates and time-to-event outcomes. Using EHR data from 4217 patients, the hazard ratio for an AIDS-defining event associated with a 100 cell/mm3 increase in CD4 count at ART initiation was 0.74 (95%CI: 0.68–0.80) using unvalidated data and 0.60 (95%CI: 0.53–0.68) using fully validated data. Our goal is to obtain unbiased and efficient estimates after validating a random subset of records. We propose fitting discrete failure time models to the validated subsample and then multiply imputing values for unvalidated records. We demonstrate how this approach simultaneously addresses dependent errors in predictors, time-to-event outcomes, and inclusion criteria. Using the fully validated dataset as a gold standard, we compare the mean squared error of our estimates with those from the unvalidated dataset and the corresponding subsample-only dataset for various subsample sizes. By incorporating reasonably sized validated subsamples and appropriate imputation models, our approach had improved estimation over both the naive analysis and the analysis using only the validation subsample.

SUBMITTER: Giganti M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7523695 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Adverse events in health care entail substantial burdens to health care systems, institutions, and patients. Retrospective trigger tools are often manually applied to detect AEs, although automated approaches using electronic health records may offer real-time adverse event detection, allowing timely corrective interventions. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this systematic review was to describe current study methods and challenges regarding the use of automatic trigger tool-based adverse event detection methods in electronic health records. In addition, we aimed to appraise the applied studies' designs and to synthesize estimates of adverse event prevalence and diagnostic test accuracy of automatic detection methods using manual trigger tool as a reference standard. METHODS:PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library were queried. We included observational studies, applying trigger tools in acute care settings, and excluded studies using nonhospital and outpatient settings. Eligible articles were divided into diagnostic test accuracy studies and prevalence studies. We derived the study prevalence and estimates for the positive predictive value. We assessed bias risks and applicability concerns using Quality Assessment tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) for diagnostic test accuracy studies and an in-house developed tool for prevalence studies. RESULTS:A total of 11 studies met all criteria: 2 concerned diagnostic test accuracy and 9 prevalence. We judged several studies to be at high bias risks for their automated detection method, definition of outcomes, and type of statistical analyses. Across all the 11 studies, adverse event prevalence ranged from 0% to 17.9%, with a median of 0.8%. The positive predictive value of all triggers to detect adverse events ranged from 0% to 100% across studies, with a median of 40%. Some triggers had wide ranging positive predictive value values: (1) in 6 studies, hypoglycemia had a positive predictive value ranging from 15.8% to 60%; (2) in 5 studies, naloxone had a positive predictive value ranging from 20% to 91%; (3) in 4 studies, flumazenil had a positive predictive value ranging from 38.9% to 83.3%; and (4) in 4 studies, protamine had a positive predictive value ranging from 0% to 60%. We were unable to determine the adverse event prevalence, positive predictive value, preventability, and severity in 40.4%, 10.5%, 71.1%, and 68.4% of the studies, respectively. These studies did not report the overall number of records analyzed, triggers, or adverse events; or the studies did not conduct the analysis. CONCLUSIONS:We observed broad interstudy variation in reported adverse event prevalence and positive predictive value. The lack of sufficiently described methods led to difficulties regarding interpretation. To improve quality, we see the need for a set of recommendations to endorse optimal use of research designs and adequate reporting of future adverse event detection studies.

Dataset Information

ACCOUNTING FOR DEPENDENT ERRORS IN PREDICTORS AND TIME-TO-EVENT OUTCOMES USING ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS, VALIDATION SAMPLES, AND MULTIPLE IMPUTATION

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets