Dataset Information

Administrative Coding in Electronic Health Care Record-Based Research of NAFLD: An Expert Panel Consensus Statement.

ABSTRACT:

Background and aims

Electronic health record (EHR)-based research allows the capture of large amounts of data, which is necessary in NAFLD, where the risk of clinical liver outcomes is generally low. The lack of consensus on which International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes should be used as exposures and outcomes limits comparability and generalizability of results across studies. We aimed to establish consensus among a panel of experts on ICD codes that could become the reference standard and provide guidance around common methodological issues.

Approach and results

Researchers with an interest in EHR-based NAFLD research were invited to collectively define which administrative codes are most appropriate for documenting exposures and outcomes. We used a modified Delphi approach to reach consensus on several commonly encountered methodological challenges in the field. After two rounds of revision, a high level of agreement (>67%) was reached on all items considered. Full consensus was achieved on a comprehensive list of administrative codes to be considered for inclusion and exclusion criteria in defining exposures and outcomes in EHR-based NAFLD research. We also provide suggestions on how to approach commonly encountered methodological issues and identify areas for future research.

Conclusions

This expert panel consensus statement can help harmonize and improve generalizability of EHR-based NAFLD research.

SUBMITTER: Hagstrom H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8515502 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:An American Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (AHPBA)-sponsored consensus meeting of expert panellists met on 15 January 2014 to review current evidence on the management of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) in order to establish practice guidelines and to agree on consensus statements. The treatment of ICC requires a coordinated, multidisciplinary approach to optimize survival. Biopsy is not necessary if the surgeon suspects ICC and is planning curative resection, although biopsy should be obtained before systemic or locoregional therapies are initiated. Assessment of resectability is best accomplished using cross-sectional imaging [computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)], but the role of positron emission tomography (PET) is unclear. Resectability in ICC is defined by the ability to completely remove the disease while leaving an adequate liver remnant. Extrahepatic disease, multiple bilobar or multicentric tumours, and lymph node metastases beyond the primary echelon are contraindications to resection. Regional lymphadenectomy should be considered a standard part of surgical therapy. In patients with high-risk features, the routine use of diagnostic laparoscopy is recommended. The preoperative diagnosis of combined hepatocellular carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-CC) by imaging studies is extremely difficult. Surgical resection remains the mainstay of treatment, but survival is worse than in HCC alone. There are no adequately powered, randomized Phase III trials that can provide definitive recommendations for adjuvant therapy for ICC. Patients with high-risk features (lymphovascular invasion, multicentricity or satellitosis, large tumours) should be encouraged to enrol in clinical trials and to consider adjuvant therapy. Cisplatin plus gemcitabine represents the standard-of-care, front-line systemic therapy for metastatic ICC. Genomic analyses of biliary cancers support the development of targeted therapeutic interventions.

Project description:BackgroundReporting guidelines for different study designs are currently available to report studies with accuracy and transparency. There is a need to develop supplementary guideline items that are specific to areas within Pediatric Dentistry. This study aims to develop Reporting stAndards for research in PedIatric Dentistry (RAPID) guidelines using a pre-defined expert consensus-based Delphi process.MethodsThe development of the RAPID guidelines was based on the Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines. Following a comprehensive search of the literature, the Executive Group identified ten themes in Pediatric Dentistry and compiled a draft checklist of items under each theme. The themes were categorized as: General, Oral Medicine, Pathology and Radiology, Children with Special Health Care Needs, Sedation and Hospital Dentistry, Behavior Guidance, Dental Caries, Preventive and Restorative Dentistry, Pulp Therapy, Traumatology, and Interceptive Orthodontics. A RAPID Delphi Group (RDG) was formed comprising of 69 members from 15 countries across six continents. Items were scored using a 9-point rating Likert scale. Items achieving a score of seven and above, marked by at least 70% of RDG members were accepted into the RAPID checklist items. Weighted mean scores were calculated for each item. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05 and one-way ANOVA was used to calculate the difference in the weighted mean scores between the themes.ResultsThe final RAPID checklist comprised of 128 items that were finalized and approved by the RDG members in the online consensus meeting. The percentage for high scores (scores 7 to 9) ranged from 69.57 to 100% for individual items. The overall weighted mean score of the final items ranged from 7.51 to 8.28 (out of 9) and the difference was statistically significant between the themes (p < 0.05).ConclusionsThe RAPID statement provides guidance to researchers, authors, reviewers and editors, to ensure that all elements relevant to particular studies are adequately reported.

Project description:ImportanceAssisted living (AL) is the largest provider of residential long-term care in the US, and the morbidity of AL residents has been rising. However, AL is not a health care setting, and concern has been growing about residents' medical and mental health needs. No guidance exists to inform this care.ObjectiveTo identify consensus recommendations for medical and mental health care in AL and determine whether they are pragmatic.Evidence reviewA Delphi consensus statement study was conducted in 2021; as a separate effort, the extent to which the recommendations are reflected in practice was examined in data obtained from 2016 to 2021 (prepandemic). In the separate effort, data were from a 7-state study (Arkansas, Louisiana, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas). The 19 Delphi panelists constituted nationally recognized experts in medical, nursing, and mental health needs of and care for older adults; dementia care; and AL and long-term care management, advocacy, regulation, and education. One invitee was unavailable and nominated an alternate. The primary outcome was identification of recommended practices based on consensus ratings of importance. Panelists rated 183 items regarding importance to care quality and feasibility.FindingsConsensus identified 43 recommendations in the areas of staff and staff training, nursing and related services, resident assessment and care planning, policies and practices, and medical and mental health clinicians and care. To determine the pragmatism of the recommendations, their prevalence was examined in the 7-state study and found that most were in practice. The items reflected the tenets of AL, the role of AL in providing dementia care, the need for pragmatism due to the diversity of AL, and workforce needs.Conclusions and relevanceIn this consensus statement, 43 recommendations important to medical and mental health care in AL were delineated that are highly pragmatic as a guide for practice and policy.

Project description:In view of the increasing complexity of both cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and patients in the current era, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. This document is an expert consensus statement that has been developed to update and further delineate indications and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, and is intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease categories. The document also highlights variations between previously published adult and pediatric CIED recommendations and provides rationale for underlying important differences. The document addresses some of the deterrents to CIED access in low- and middle-income countries and strategies to circumvent them. The document sections were divided up and drafted by the writing committee members according to their expertise. The recommendations represent the consensus opinion of the entire writing committee, graded by class of recommendation and level of evidence. Several questions addressed in this document either do not lend themselves to clinical trials or are rare disease entities, and in these instances recommendations are based on consensus expert opinion. Furthermore, specific recommendations, even when supported by substantial data, do not replace the need for clinical judgment and patient-specific decision-making. The recommendations were opened for public comment to Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) members and underwent external review by the scientific and clinical document committee of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the science advisory and coordinating committee of the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). The document received endorsement by all the collaborators and the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS). This document is expected to provide support for clinicians and patients to allow for appropriate CIED use, appropriate CIED management, and appropriate CIED follow-up in pediatric patients.