scholarly journals Automatable algorithms to identify nonmedical opioid use using electronic data: a systematic review

2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (6) ◽  
pp. 1204-1210 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chelsea Canan ◽  
Jennifer M Polinski ◽  
G Caleb Alexander ◽  
Mary K Kowal ◽  
Troyen A Brennan ◽  
...  

Abstract Objective Improved methods to identify nonmedical opioid use can help direct health care resources to individuals who need them. Automated algorithms that use large databases of electronic health care claims or records for surveillance are a potential means to achieve this goal. In this systematic review, we reviewed the utility, attempts at validation, and application of such algorithms to detect nonmedical opioid use. Materials and Methods We searched PubMed and Embase for articles describing automatable algorithms that used electronic health care claims or records to identify patients or prescribers with likely nonmedical opioid use. We assessed algorithm development, validation, and performance characteristics and the settings where they were applied. Study variability precluded a meta-analysis. Results Of 15 included algorithms, 10 targeted patients, 2 targeted providers, 2 targeted both, and 1 identified medications with high abuse potential. Most patient-focused algorithms (67%) used prescription drug claims and/or medical claims, with diagnosis codes of substance abuse and/or dependence as the reference standard. Eleven algorithms were developed via regression modeling. Four used natural language processing, data mining, audit analysis, or factor analysis. Discussion Automated algorithms can facilitate population-level surveillance. However, there is no true gold standard for determining nonmedical opioid use. Users must recognize the implications of identifying false positives and, conversely, false negatives. Few algorithms have been applied in real-world settings. Conclusion Automated algorithms may facilitate identification of patients and/or providers most likely to need more intensive screening and/or intervention for nonmedical opioid use. Additional implementation research in real-world settings would clarify their utility.

Author(s):  
Jie Yang ◽  
Rohan D’souza ◽  
Ashraf Kharrat ◽  
Deshayne B. Fell ◽  
John W. Snelgrove ◽  
...  

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. e037405
Author(s):  
Daniel Dedman ◽  
Melissa Cabecinha ◽  
Rachael Williams ◽  
Stephen J W Evans ◽  
Krishnan Bhaskaran ◽  
...  

ObjectiveTo identify observational studies which used data from more than one primary care electronic health record (EHR) database, and summarise key characteristics including: objective and rationale for using multiple data sources; methods used to manage, analyse and (where applicable) combine data; and approaches used to assess and report heterogeneity between data sources.DesignA systematic review of published studies.Data sourcesPubmed and Embase databases were searched using list of named primary care EHR databases; supplementary hand searches of reference list of studies were retained after initial screening.Study selectionObservational studies published between January 2000 and May 2018 were selected, which included at least two different primary care EHR databases.Results6054 studies were identified from database and hand searches, and 109 were included in the final review, the majority published between 2014 and 2018. Included studies used 38 different primary care EHR data sources. Forty-seven studies (44%) were descriptive or methodological. Of 62 analytical studies, 22 (36%) presented separate results from each database, with no attempt to combine them; 29 (48%) combined individual patient data in a one-stage meta-analysis and 21 (34%) combined estimates from each database using two-stage meta-analysis. Discussion and exploration of heterogeneity was inconsistent across studies.ConclusionsComparing patterns and trends in different populations, or in different primary care EHR databases from the same populations, is important and a common objective for multi-database studies. When combining results from several databases using meta-analysis, provision of separate results from each database is helpful for interpretation. We found that these were often missing, particularly for studies using one-stage approaches, which also often lacked details of any statistical adjustment for heterogeneity and/or clustering. For two-stage meta-analysis, a clear rationale should be provided for choice of fixed effect and/or random effects or other models.


2021 ◽  
Vol 58 ◽  
pp. 101441
Author(s):  
Aseel Ahmad ◽  
Randa Ahmad ◽  
Moussa Meteb ◽  
Clodagh M. Ryan ◽  
Richard S. Leung ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 219 ◽  
pp. 108459
Author(s):  
Thomas Santo ◽  
Gabrielle Campbell ◽  
Natasa Gisev ◽  
Lucy Thi Tran ◽  
Samantha Colledge ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (Supp2) ◽  
pp. 441-450 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jesse M. Ehrenfeld ◽  
Keanan Gabriel Gottlieb ◽  
Lauren Brittany Beach ◽  
Shelby E. Monahan ◽  
Daniel Fabbri

Objective: To create a natural language pro­cessing (NLP) algorithm to identify transgen­der patients in electronic health records.Design: We developed an NLP algorithm to identify patients (keyword + billing codes). Patients were manually reviewed, and their health care services categorized by billing code.Setting: Vanderbilt University Medical CenterParticipants: 234 adult and pediatric trans­gender patientsMain Outcome Measures: Number of transgender patients correctly identified and categorization of health services utilized.Results: We identified 234 transgender pa­tients of whom 50% had a diagnosed men­tal health condition, 14% were living with HIV, and 7% had diabetes. Largely driven by hormone use, nearly half of patients attended the Endocrinology/Diabetes/Me­tabolism clinic. Many patients also attended the Psychiatry, HIV, and/or Obstetrics/Gyne­cology clinics. The false positive rate of our algorithm was 3%.Conclusions: Our novel algorithm correctly identified transgender patients and provided important insights into health care utiliza­tion among this marginalized population. Ethn Dis. 2019;29(Suppl 2): 441-450. doi:10.18865/ed.29.S2.441


2016 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. A4 ◽  
Author(s):  
E.T. Masters ◽  
J. Mardekian ◽  
A. Ramaprasan ◽  
K. Saunders ◽  
D.E. Gross ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 60-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paolo Campanella ◽  
Emanuela Lovato ◽  
Claudio Marone ◽  
Lucia Fallacara ◽  
Agostino Mancuso ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document