4.2 Article

Development and validation of algorithms to identify acute diverticulitis

期刊

PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY
卷 24, 期 1, 页码 27-37

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pds.3708

关键词

algorithms; diagnosis validation; diverticulitis; positive predictive value; sensitivity; pharmacoepidemiology

资金

  1. Shire Development LLC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PurposeThe objectives of this study were to develop and validate algorithms to accurately identify patients with diverticulitis using electronic medical records (EMRs). MethodsUsing Kaiser Permanente Southern California's EMRs of adults (18years) with International Classification of Diseases, Clinical Modifications, Ninth Revision diagnosis codes of diverticulitis (562.11, 562.13) between 1 January 2008 and 31 August 2009, we generated random samples for pilot (N=692) and validation (N=1502) respectively. Both samples were stratified by inpatient (IP), emergency department (ED), and outpatient (OP) care settings. We developed and validated several algorithms using EMR data on diverticulitis diagnosis code, antibiotics, computed tomography, diverticulosis history, pain medication and/or pain diagnosis, and excluding patients with infections and/or conditions that could mimic diverticulitis. Evidence of diverticulitis was confirmed through manual chart review. Agreement between EMR algorithm and manual chart confirmation was evaluated using sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV). ResultsBoth samples were similar in socio-demographics and clinical symptoms. An algorithm based on diverticulitis diagnosis code with antibiotic prescription dispensed within 7days of diagnosis date, performed well overall. In the validation sample, sensitivity and PPV were (84.6, 98.2%), (95.8, 98.1%), and (91.8, 82.6%) for OP, ED, and IP, respectively. ConclusionUsing antibiotic prescriptions to supplement diagnostic codes improved the accuracy of case identification for diverticulitis, but results varied by care setting. Copyright (c) 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据