Automated generation of comparator patients in the electronic medical record.

comparative effectiveness research electronic medical record matching retrospective observational study

Journal

Learning health systems
ISSN: 2379-6146
Titre abrégé: Learn Health Syst
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101708071

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Jan 2024
Historique:
received: 02 09 2022
revised: 17 02 2023
accepted: 18 02 2023
medline: 22 1 2024
pubmed: 22 1 2024
entrez: 22 1 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Well-designed randomized trials provide high-quality clinical evidence but are not always feasible or ethical. In their absence, the electronic medical record (EMR) presents a platform to conduct comparative effectiveness research, central to the emerging academic learning health system (aLHS) model. A barrier to realizing this vision is the lack of a process to efficiently generate a reference comparison group for each patient. To test a multi-step process for the selection of comparators in the EMR. We conducted a mixed-methods study within a large aLHS in North Carolina. We (1) created a list of 35 candidate variables; (2) surveyed 270 researchers to assess the importance of candidate variables; and (3) built consensus rankings around survey-identified variables (ie, importance scores >7) across two panels of 7-8 clinical research experts. Prioritized algorithm inputs were collected from the EMR and applied using a greedy matching technique. Feasibility was measured as the percentage of patients with 100 matched comparators and performance was measured via computational time and Euclidean distance. Nine variables were selected: age, sex, race, ethnicity, body mass index, insurance status, smoking status, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and neighborhood percentage in poverty. The final process successfully generated 100 matched comparators for each of 1.8 million candidate patients, executed in less than 100 min for the majority of strata, and had average Euclidean distance 0.043. EMR-derived matching is feasible to implement across a diverse patient population and can provide a reproducible, efficient source of comparator data for observational studies, with additional testing in clinical research applications needed.

Sections du résumé

Background UNASSIGNED
Well-designed randomized trials provide high-quality clinical evidence but are not always feasible or ethical. In their absence, the electronic medical record (EMR) presents a platform to conduct comparative effectiveness research, central to the emerging academic learning health system (aLHS) model. A barrier to realizing this vision is the lack of a process to efficiently generate a reference comparison group for each patient.
Objective UNASSIGNED
To test a multi-step process for the selection of comparators in the EMR.
Materials and Methods UNASSIGNED
We conducted a mixed-methods study within a large aLHS in North Carolina. We (1) created a list of 35 candidate variables; (2) surveyed 270 researchers to assess the importance of candidate variables; and (3) built consensus rankings around survey-identified variables (ie, importance scores >7) across two panels of 7-8 clinical research experts. Prioritized algorithm inputs were collected from the EMR and applied using a greedy matching technique. Feasibility was measured as the percentage of patients with 100 matched comparators and performance was measured via computational time and Euclidean distance.
Results UNASSIGNED
Nine variables were selected: age, sex, race, ethnicity, body mass index, insurance status, smoking status, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and neighborhood percentage in poverty. The final process successfully generated 100 matched comparators for each of 1.8 million candidate patients, executed in less than 100 min for the majority of strata, and had average Euclidean distance 0.043.
Conclusion UNASSIGNED
EMR-derived matching is feasible to implement across a diverse patient population and can provide a reproducible, efficient source of comparator data for observational studies, with additional testing in clinical research applications needed.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38249842
doi: 10.1002/lrh2.10362
pii: LRH210362
pmc: PMC10797581
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

e10362

Informations de copyright

© 2023 The Authors. Learning Health Systems published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of University of Michigan.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Auteurs

Joseph Rigdon (J)

Department of Biostatistics and Data Science Wake Forest University School of Medicine Winston-Salem North Carolina USA.
Center for Biomedical Informatics Wake Forest University School of Medicine Winston-Salem North Carolina USA.
Clinical and Translational Science Institute Wake Forest University School of Medicine Winston-Salem North Carolina USA.

Brian Ostasiewski (B)

Center for Biomedical Informatics Wake Forest University School of Medicine Winston-Salem North Carolina USA.
Clinical and Translational Science Institute Wake Forest University School of Medicine Winston-Salem North Carolina USA.

Kamah Woelfel (K)

Clinical and Translational Science Institute Wake Forest University School of Medicine Winston-Salem North Carolina USA.

Kimberly D Wiseman (KD)

Department of Social Sciences and Health Policy Wake Forest University School of Medicine Winston-Salem North Carolina USA.

Tim Hetherington (T)

Clinical and Translational Science Institute Wake Forest University School of Medicine Winston-Salem North Carolina USA.

Stephen Downs (S)

Center for Biomedical Informatics Wake Forest University School of Medicine Winston-Salem North Carolina USA.

Marc Kowalkowski (M)

Clinical and Translational Science Institute Wake Forest University School of Medicine Winston-Salem North Carolina USA.

Classifications MeSH