2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2016.08.005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Computing disease incidence, prevalence and comorbidity from electronic medical records

Abstract: Electronic medical records (EMR) represent a convenient source of coded medical data, but disease patterns found in EMRs may be biased when compared to surveys based on sampling. In this communication we draw attention to complications that arise when using EMR data to calculate disease prevalence, incidence, age of onset, and disease comorbidity. We review known solutions to these problems and identify challenges for future work.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
22
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 32 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 51 publications
0
22
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The results presented in this paper were, exclusively, based on hospitalized patient data and consequently, they should be interpreted accordingly. Possible errors in the diagnostic codes and admission dates, as well as incomplete data and inaccuracies, all inherent to the health dataset used, might cause certain variations in the resulting disease associations, as also discussed by several other authors 43 , 44 . Furthermore, some unexpected –according to the literature- temporal comorbidities identified (e.g., Cataract (366) → Diabetes Mellitus (250) or Cataract (366) → Chronic Bronchitis (491) in Table 1 ), could be possibly explained by the fact that some diseases share important risk factors (such as, ageing, smoking and/or obesity), thereby making difficult to define with accuracy which disease precedes or follows another.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 88%
“…The results presented in this paper were, exclusively, based on hospitalized patient data and consequently, they should be interpreted accordingly. Possible errors in the diagnostic codes and admission dates, as well as incomplete data and inaccuracies, all inherent to the health dataset used, might cause certain variations in the resulting disease associations, as also discussed by several other authors 43 , 44 . Furthermore, some unexpected –according to the literature- temporal comorbidities identified (e.g., Cataract (366) → Diabetes Mellitus (250) or Cataract (366) → Chronic Bronchitis (491) in Table 1 ), could be possibly explained by the fact that some diseases share important risk factors (such as, ageing, smoking and/or obesity), thereby making difficult to define with accuracy which disease precedes or follows another.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 88%
“…If a patient's blood pressure is not measured, this doesn't mean that the patient does not have hypertension. Similarly, mild pain is often treated using over-the-counter medications leaving no mark in the medical record [30,31].…”
Section: D Data Qualitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nonetheless, the etiology and outcome of single conditions will very often be related to their temporal context in terms of other conditions 1820 . A temporal trend is a prerequisite for causality and should systematically be taken into consideration when studying patient-specific co-occurrences of conditions 21,22 .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%