Browsing by Author "Richesson, Rachel"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Data and knowledge standards for learning health: A population management example using chronic kidney disease
    (Learning Health Systems, 2018-10) Cameron, Blake; Douthit, Brian; Richesson, Rachel
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Design and analytic considerations for using patient-reported health data in pragmatic clinical trials: report from an NIH Collaboratory roundtable.
    (Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2020-02-06) Rockhold, Frank W; Tenenbaum, Jessica D; Richesson, Rachel; Marsolo, Keith A; O'Brien, Emily C
    Pragmatic clinical trials often entail the use of electronic health record (EHR) and claims data, but bias and quality issues associated with these data can limit their fitness for research purposes particularly for study end points. Patient-reported health (PRH) data can be used to confirm or supplement EHR and claims data in pragmatic trials, but these data can bring their own biases. Moreover, PRH data can complicate analyses if they are discordant with other sources. Using experience in the design and conduct of multi-site pragmatic trials, we itemize the strengths and limitations of PRH data and identify situational criteria for determining when PRH data are appropriate or ideal to fill gaps in the evidence collected from EHRs. To provide guidance for the scientific rationale and appropriate use of patient-reported data in pragmatic clinical trials, we describe approaches for ascertaining and classifying study end points and addressing issues of incomplete data, data alignment, and concordance. We conclude by identifying areas that require more research.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Preparing for the ICD-10-CM Transition: Automated Methods for Translating ICD Codes in Clinical Phenotype Definitions.
    (EGEMS (Washington, DC), 2016-01) Fung, Kin Wah; Richesson, Rachel; Smerek, Michelle; Pereira, Katherine C; Green, Beverly B; Patkar, Ashwin; Clowse, Megan; Bauck, Alan; Bodenreider, Olivier
    The national mandate for health systems to transition from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM in October 2015 has an impact on research activities. Clinical phenotypes defined by ICD-9-CM codes need to be converted to ICD-10-CM, which has nearly four times more codes and a very different structure than ICD-9-CM.We used the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) General Equivalent Maps (GEMs) to translate, using four different methods, condition-specific ICD-9-CM code sets used for pragmatic trials (n=32) into ICD-10-CM. We calculated the recall, precision, and F score of each method. We also used the ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM value sets defined for electronic quality measure as an additional evaluation of the mapping methods.The forward-backward mapping (FBM) method had higher precision, recall and F-score metrics than simple forward mapping (SFM). The more aggressive secondary (SM) and tertiary mapping (TM) methods resulted in higher recall but lower precision. For clinical phenotype definition, FBM was the best (F=0.67), but was close to SM (F=0.62) and TM (F=0.60), judging on the F-scores alone. The overall difference between the four methods was statistically significant (one-way ANOVA, F=5.749, p=0.001). However, pairwise comparisons between FBM, SM, and TM did not reach statistical significance. A similar trend was found for the quality measure value sets.The optimal method for using the GEMs depends on the relative importance of recall versus precision for a given use case. It appears that for clinically distinct and homogenous conditions, the recall of FBM is sufficient. The performance of all mapping methods was lower for heterogeneous conditions. Since code sets used for phenotype definition and quality measurement can be very similar, there is a possibility of cross-fertilization between the two activities.Different mapping approaches yield different collections of ICD-10-CM codes. All methods require some level of human validation.