Validity of Cardiovascular Data From Electronic Sources

Abstract

Background Understanding the validity of data from electronic data research networks is critical to national research initiatives and learning healthcare systems for cardiovascular care. Our goal was to evaluate the degree of agreement of electronic data research networks compared with data collected by standardized research approaches in a cohort study. Methods We linked individual-level data from The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA), a community-based cohort, with HealthLNK, a 2006–2012 database of electronic health records (EHRs) from six, Chicago health systems. To evaluate the correlation and agreement of blood pressure (BP) in HealthLNK as compared with in-person MESA examinations, and BMI in HealthLNK compared with MESA, we used Pearson Correlation Coefficients and Bland-Altman plots. Using diagnoses in MESA as the criterion standard, we calculated the performance of HealthLNK for hypertension (HTN), obesity, and diabetes diagnosis using ICD-9 codes and clinical data. We also identified potential myocardial infarctions (MIs), strokes, and heart failure events in HealthLNK and compared them with adjudicated events in MESA. Results Of the 1,164 MESA participants enrolled at the Chicago Field Center, 802 (68.9%) participants had data in HealthLNK. The correlation was low for systolic BP (0.39; P<0.0001). Compared with MESA, HealthLNK overestimated systolic BP by 6.5 mmHg (95%CI: 4.2, 7.8). There was a high correlation between BMI in MESA and HealthLNK (0.94; P<0.0001). HealthLNK underestimated BMI by 0.3 kg/m2 (95%CI: −0.4, −0.1). Using ICD-9 codes and clinical data, the sensitivity and specificity of HealthLNK queries for HTN were 82.4% and 59.4%, for obesity were 73.0% and 89.8%, and for diabetes were 79.8% and 93.3%. Compared with adjudicated CVD events in MESA, the concordance rates for MI, stroke, and heart failure were, respectively, 41.7% (5/12), 61.5% (8/13), and 62.5% (10/16). Conclusions These findings illustrate the limitations and strengths of electronic data repositories compared with information collected by traditional standardized epidemiologic approaches for the ascertainment of CVD risk factors and events.

COVID-19 risk and outcomes in patients with substance use disorders: analyses from electronic health records in the United States

“…Our study is based on retrospective analysis of patient EHR data. Patient EHR data have been widely used and accepted for observational studies including health utilization, drug utilization, epidemiology (incidence/prevalence), risk factors, and safety surveillance [ 32 – 34 ]. However patient EHR data have inherent limitations when used for research purposes: data are collected for billing purposes, often suffer from under, over, or misdiagnosis, do not include all confounding factors, have limited time-series information, limited information of medication adherence and patient outcomes, among others.…”

Use of Long-term Cumulative Blood Pressure in Cardiovascular Risk Prediction Models

“…Lastly, blood pressure measurement is conducted in the included cohorts via detailed research protocols, which only moderately correlate to clinical blood pressure values. 11 Likewise, these measures may differ from ambulatory blood pressure values. Additional validation in cohorts that use real-world blood pressure measures is warranted.…”

Comparison of automated clinical and research blood pressure measurements: Implications for clinical practice and trial design

“…When measurements from the HealthLNK network of 6 Chicago institutions was compared to measurements made in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) cohort, the EHR-derived SBP was on average 6.3 mm Hg higher. 20 In both cases, research-grade measurements were compared to routine clinical care. While we also observed a persistent overestimation of SBP in the clinic, the difference of 4.4 mm Hg is lower than that reported in either of the prior studies, suggesting adoption of a standardized automated BP measurement program might attenuate, by not eliminate the discrepancies between the two types of measurements.…”