scholarly journals Opportunities and challenges in developing risk prediction models with electronic health records data: a systematic review

2016 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 198-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin A Goldstein ◽  
Ann Marie Navar ◽  
Michael J Pencina ◽  
John P A Ioannidis

Objective: Electronic health records (EHRs) are an increasingly common data source for clinical risk prediction, presenting both unique analytic opportunities and challenges. We sought to evaluate the current state of EHR based risk prediction modeling through a systematic review of clinical prediction studies using EHR data. Methods: We searched PubMed for articles that reported on the use of an EHR to develop a risk prediction model from 2009 to 2014. Articles were extracted by two reviewers, and we abstracted information on study design, use of EHR data, model building, and performance from each publication and supplementary documentation. Results: We identified 107 articles from 15 different countries. Studies were generally very large (median sample size = 26 100) and utilized a diverse array of predictors. Most used validation techniques (n = 94 of 107) and reported model coefficients for reproducibility (n = 83). However, studies did not fully leverage the breadth of EHR data, as they uncommonly used longitudinal information (n = 37) and employed relatively few predictor variables (median = 27 variables). Less than half of the studies were multicenter (n = 50) and only 26 performed validation across sites. Many studies did not fully address biases of EHR data such as missing data or loss to follow-up. Average c-statistics for different outcomes were: mortality (0.84), clinical prediction (0.83), hospitalization (0.71), and service utilization (0.71). Conclusions: EHR data present both opportunities and challenges for clinical risk prediction. There is room for improvement in designing such studies.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vanash Patel ◽  
George Garas ◽  
James Hollingshead ◽  
Drostan Cheetham ◽  
Thanos Athanasiou ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND Electronic health records are digital records of a patient’s health and care. At present in the UK, patients may have several paper and electronic records stored in various settings. The UK government, via NHS England, intends to introduce a comprehensive system of electronic health records in England by 2020. These electronic records will run across primary, secondary and social care linking all data in a single digital platform. OBJECTIVE This is the first systematic review to look at all published data on EHRs to determine which systems are advantageous. METHODS Design: A systematic review was performed by searching EMBASE and Ovid MEDLINE between 1974 and November 2019. Participants: All original studies that appraised EHR systems were included. Main outcome measures: EHR system comparison, implementation, user satisfaction, efficiency and performance, documentation, and research and development. RESULTS The search strategy identified 701 studies, which were filtered down to 46 relevant studies. Level of evidence ranged from 1 to 4 according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine. The majority of the studies were performed in the USA (n = 44). N=6 studies compared more than one EHR, and Epic followed by Cerner were the most favourable through direct comparison. N=17 studies evaluated implementation which highlighted that it was challenging, and productivity dipped in the early phase. N=5 studies reflected on user satisfaction, with women demonstrating higher satisfaction than men. Efficiency and performance issues were the driving force behind user dissatisfaction. N=26 studies addressed efficiency and performance, which improved with long-term use and familiarity. N=18 studies considered documentation and showed that EHRs had a positive impact with basic and speciality tasks. N=29 studies assessed research and development which revealed vast capabilities and positive implications. CONCLUSIONS Epic is the most studied EHR system and the most commonly used vendor on the market. There is limited comparative data between EHR vendors, so it is difficult to assess which is the most advantageous system.


2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 286-304 ◽  
Author(s):  
Le Wang ◽  
Pamela A. Shaw ◽  
Hansie M. Mathelier ◽  
Stephen E. Kimmel ◽  
Benjamin French

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. e100253
Author(s):  
Videha Sharma ◽  
Ibrahim Ali ◽  
Sabine van der Veer ◽  
Glen Martin ◽  
John Ainsworth ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document