Using electronic health record data to identify incident uterine fibroids and endometriosis within a large, urban academic medical center: a validation study.
Mia Charifson, Geidily Beaton-Mata, Robyn Lipschultz, India Robinson, Simone A Sasse, Hye-Chun Hur, Shilpi-Mehta S Lee, Erinn M Hade, Linda G Kahn
{"title":"Using electronic health record data to identify incident uterine fibroids and endometriosis within a large, urban academic medical center: a validation study.","authors":"Mia Charifson, Geidily Beaton-Mata, Robyn Lipschultz, India Robinson, Simone A Sasse, Hye-Chun Hur, Shilpi-Mehta S Lee, Erinn M Hade, Linda G Kahn","doi":"10.1093/aje/kwaf058","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Electronic health records (EHRs) present opportunities to study uterine fibroids and endometriosis within diverse populations. When using EHR data, it is important to validate outcome classification via diagnosis codes. We performed a validation study of 3 approaches ([1] International Classification of Diseases-10 (ICD-10) code alone, [2] ICD-10 code + diagnostic procedure, and [3] ICD-10 code + all diagnostic information) to identify incident uterine fibroids and endometriosis patients among n = 750 NYU Langone Health 2016-2023. Chart review was used to determine the true diagnosis status. When using a binary classification system (incident vs nonincident patient), Approaches 2 and 3 had higher positive predictive values (PPVs) for uterine fibroids (0.86 and 0.87 vs 0.78) and for endometriosis (0.70 and 0.73 vs 0.66), but Approach 1 outperformed the other 2 in negative predictive values (NPVs) for both outcomes. When using a 3-level classification system (incident vs prevalent vs disease-free patients), PPV for prevalent patients was low for all approaches, while PPV/NPV of disease-free patients was generally above 0.8. Using ICD-10 codes alone yielded higher NPVs but resulted in lower PPVs compared with the other approaches. Continued validation of uterine fibroids/endometriosis EHR studies is warranted to increase research into these understudied gynecologic conditions.</p>","PeriodicalId":7472,"journal":{"name":"American journal of epidemiology","volume":" ","pages":"291-299"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwaf058","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Electronic health records (EHRs) present opportunities to study uterine fibroids and endometriosis within diverse populations. When using EHR data, it is important to validate outcome classification via diagnosis codes. We performed a validation study of 3 approaches ([1] International Classification of Diseases-10 (ICD-10) code alone, [2] ICD-10 code + diagnostic procedure, and [3] ICD-10 code + all diagnostic information) to identify incident uterine fibroids and endometriosis patients among n = 750 NYU Langone Health 2016-2023. Chart review was used to determine the true diagnosis status. When using a binary classification system (incident vs nonincident patient), Approaches 2 and 3 had higher positive predictive values (PPVs) for uterine fibroids (0.86 and 0.87 vs 0.78) and for endometriosis (0.70 and 0.73 vs 0.66), but Approach 1 outperformed the other 2 in negative predictive values (NPVs) for both outcomes. When using a 3-level classification system (incident vs prevalent vs disease-free patients), PPV for prevalent patients was low for all approaches, while PPV/NPV of disease-free patients was generally above 0.8. Using ICD-10 codes alone yielded higher NPVs but resulted in lower PPVs compared with the other approaches. Continued validation of uterine fibroids/endometriosis EHR studies is warranted to increase research into these understudied gynecologic conditions.
电子健康记录(EHRs)为研究不同人群的子宫肌瘤和子宫内膜异位症提供了机会。当使用电子病历数据时,通过诊断代码验证结果分类是很重要的。我们对三种方法(1:单独使用ICD-10代码,2:ICD-10代码+诊断程序,3:ICD-10代码+所有诊断信息)进行了验证研究,以识别n=750名NYU Langone Health 2016-2023年的子宫肌瘤和子宫内膜异位症患者。采用图表复习来确定真实的诊断状态。当使用二元分类系统(事件与非事件患者)时,方法2和3对子宫肌瘤(0.86和0.87 vs. 0.78)和子宫内膜异位症(0.70和0.73 vs. 0.66)具有更高的阳性预测值(ppv),但方法1在两种结果的阴性预测值(npv)上都优于其他两种。当使用三级分类系统(发病、流行、无病患者)时,所有方法中流行患者的PPV都较低,而无病患者的PPV/NPV一般在0.8以上。与其他方法相比,单独使用ICD-10编码产生更高的npv,但导致更低的ppv。继续验证子宫肌瘤/子宫内膜异位症的电子病历研究是必要的,以增加对这些未充分研究的妇科疾病的研究。
期刊介绍:
The American Journal of Epidemiology is the oldest and one of the premier epidemiologic journals devoted to the publication of empirical research findings, opinion pieces, and methodological developments in the field of epidemiologic research.
It is a peer-reviewed journal aimed at both fellow epidemiologists and those who use epidemiologic data, including public health workers and clinicians.