↓ Skip to main content

Intra-database validation of case-identifying algorithms using reconstituted electronic health records from healthcare claims data

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, May 2021
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Intra-database validation of case-identifying algorithms using reconstituted electronic health records from healthcare claims data
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, May 2021
DOI 10.1186/s12874-021-01285-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicolas H. Thurin, Pauline Bosco-Levy, Patrick Blin, Magali Rouyer, Jérémy Jové, Stéphanie Lamarque, Séverine Lignot, Régis Lassalle, Abdelilah Abouelfath, Emmanuelle Bignon, Pauline Diez, Marine Gross-Goupil, Michel Soulié, Mathieu Roumiguié, Sylvestre Le Moulec, Marc Debouverie, Bruno Brochet, Francis Guillemin, Céline Louapre, Elisabeth Maillart, Olivier Heinzlef, Nicholas Moore, Cécile Droz-Perroteau

Abstract

Diagnosis performances of case-identifying algorithms developed in healthcare database are usually assessed by comparing identified cases with an external data source. When this is not feasible, intra-database validation can present an appropriate alternative. To illustrate through two practical examples how to perform intra-database validations of case-identifying algorithms using reconstituted Electronic Health Records (rEHRs). Patients with 1) multiple sclerosis (MS) relapses and 2) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) were identified in the French nationwide healthcare database (SNDS) using two case-identifying algorithms. A validation study was then conducted to estimate diagnostic performances of these algorithms through the calculation of their positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV). To that end, anonymized rEHRs were generated based on the overall information captured in the SNDS over time (e.g. procedure, hospital stays, drug dispensing, medical visits) for a random selection of patients identified as cases or non-cases according to the predefined algorithms. For each disease, an independent validation committee reviewed the rEHRs of 100 cases and 100 non-cases in order to adjudicate on the status of the selected patients (true case/ true non-case), blinded with respect to the result of the corresponding algorithm. Algorithm for relapses identification in MS showed a 95% PPV and 100% NPV. Algorithm for mCRPC identification showed a 97% PPV and 99% NPV. The use of rEHRs to conduct an intra-database validation appears to be a valuable tool to estimate the performances of a case-identifying algorithm and assess its validity, in the absence of alternative.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 8%
Researcher 2 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 8%
Other 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 12 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 13%
Computer Science 2 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Psychology 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 14 58%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 January 2022.
All research outputs
#2,397,410
of 25,175,727 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#346
of 2,246 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,932
of 434,423 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#11
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,175,727 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,246 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 434,423 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.