Dataset Information

Interrogating an ICD-coded electronic health records database to characterize the epidemiology of prosopagnosia.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Recognition of faces of family members, friends, and colleagues is an important skill essential for everyday life. Individuals affected by prosopagnosia (face blindness) have difficulty recognizing familiar individuals. The prevalence of prosopagnosia has been estimated to be as high as 3%. Prosopagnosia can severely impact the quality of life of those affected, and it has been suggested to co-occur with conditions such as depression and anxiety.

Methods

To determine real-world diagnostic frequency of prosopagnosia and the spectrum of its comorbidities, we utilized a large database of more than 7.5 million de-identified electronic health records (EHRs) from patients who received care at major academic health centers and Federally Qualified Health Centers in New York City. We designed a computable phenotype to search the database for diagnosed cases of prosopagnosia, revealing a total of n = 902 cases. In addition, data from a randomly sampled matched control population (n = 100,973) were drawn from the database for comparative analyses to study the condition's comorbidity landscape. Diagnostic frequency of prosopagnosia, epidemiological characteristics, and comorbidity landscape were assessed.

Results

We observed prosopagnosia diagnoses at a rate of 0.012% (12 per 100,000 individuals). We discovered elevated frequency of prosopagnosia diagnosis for individuals who carried certain comorbid conditions, such as personality disorder, depression, epilepsy, and anxiety. Moreover, prosopagnosia diagnoses increased with the number of comorbid conditions.

Conclusions

Results from this study show a wide range of comorbidities and suggest that prosopagnosia is vastly underdiagnosed. Findings imply important clinical consequences for the diagnosis and management of prosopagnosia as well as its comorbid conditions.

SUBMITTER: Pressl C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8057409 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo characterize nonpsychiatric prescription patterns of antidepressants according to drug labels and evidence assessments (on-label, evidence-based, and off-label) using structured outpatient electronic health record (EHR) data.MethodsA retrospective analysis was conducted using deidentified EHR data from an outpatient practice at a New York City-based academic medical center. Structured "medication-diagnosis" pairs for antidepressants from 35 325 patients between January 2010 and December 2015 were compared to the latest drug product labels and evidence assessments.ResultsOf 140 929 antidepressant prescriptions prescribed by primary care providers (PCPs) and nonpsychiatry specialists, 69% were characterized as "on-label/evidence-based uses." Depression diagnoses were associated with 67 233 (48%) prescriptions in this study, while pain diagnoses were slightly less common (35%). Manual chart review of "off-label use" prescriptions revealed that on-label/evidence-based diagnoses of depression (39%), anxiety (25%), insomnia (13%), mood disorders (7%), and neuropathic pain (5%) were frequently cited as prescription indication despite lacking ICD-9/10 documentation.ConclusionsThe results indicate that antidepressants may be prescribed for off-label uses, by PCPs and nonpsychiatry specialists, less frequently than believed. This study also points to the fact that there are a number of off-label uses that are efficacious and widely accepted by expert clinical opinion but have not been included in drug compendia. Despite the fact that diagnosis codes in the outpatient setting are notoriously inaccurate, our approach demonstrates that the correct codes are often documented in a patient's recent diagnosis history. Examining both structured and unstructured data will help to further validate findings. Routinely collected clinical data in EHRs can serve as an important resource for future studies in investigating prescribing behaviors in outpatient clinics.

Project description:ImportanceBig data studies may allow for the aggregation of patients with rare diseases such as uveitis to answer important clinical questions. Standardization of uveitis-related variables will be necessary, including the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes used to identify patients of interest. There are currently limited data on the uniformity of diagnosis mapping to ICD-10 codes for uveitis diagnoses among different health systems.ObjectiveTo assess the degree of uniformity in mapping of uveitis clinical concepts to ICD-10 codes across health care systems using the same electronic health record (EHR) system.Design, setting, and participantsThis multicenter survey study was conducted between September 14 and October 9, 2020, at 5 academic health care systems that use the Epic EHR. Researchers from the University of Washington, Harvard University, Stanford University, Yale University, and the University of California, San Francisco queried 54 uveitis-related diagnostic terms and recorded the associated ICD-10 codes.Main outcomes and measuresThe degree of uniformity for uveitis clinical concepts and associated ICD-10 codes.ResultsFifty-four uveitis-related diagnostic terms were queried within the Epic EHR at 5 different health care systems. There was perfect agreement among all 5 centers for 52 of the 54 diagnostic terms. Two diagnostic terms had differences in ICD-10 coding: juvenile idiopathic arthritis associated chronic uveitis and intermediate uveitis. Intermediate uveitis was associated with codes H20.1x (ICD-10 description: chronic iridocyclitis) or H20.9 (ICD-10 description: unspecified iridocyclitis) in 3 centers while being associated with code H30.2x (ICD-10 description: posterior cyclitis) at the 2 remaining centers. The discrepancies appear to be related to a recent update in diagnostic mapping in the Epic EHR.Conclusions and relevanceThis study suggests that ICD-10 code mapping to uveitis diagnostic terminology appears to be highly uniform at different centers with the Epic EHR. However, temporal changes in diagnosis mapping to ICD-10 codes and a lack of 1-to-1 mapping of diagnosis to ICD-10 code add additional sources of complexity to the interpretation of big data studies in uveitis.