4.6 Review

Defining asthma and assessing asthma outcomes using electronic health record data: a systematic scoping review

Journal

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
Volume 49, Issue 6, Pages -

Publisher

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/13993003.00204-2017

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Health and Care Research Wales
  2. Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board
  3. Asthma UK Centre for Applied Research [AUK-AC-2012-01]
  4. Farr Institute of Health Informatics Research
  5. Arthritis Research UK
  6. British Heart Foundation
  7. Cancer Research UK
  8. Economic and Social Research Council
  9. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
  10. Medical Research Council
  11. National Institute of Health Research
  12. National Institute for Social Care and Health Research (Welsh Assembly Government)
  13. Chief Scientist Office (Scottish Government Health Directorates)
  14. Wellcome Trust (Medical Research Council) [CIPHER MR/K006525/1, Scotland MR/K007017/1]
  15. Crossref Funder Registry
  16. ESRC [ES/L007444/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  17. MRC [MR/K006525/1, MR/K007017/1, MR/M501633/2, MR/M501633/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  18. Asthma UK [MRC-AsthmaUKCentre, AUK-AC-2012-01, MRC-Asthma UK Centre] Funding Source: researchfish
  19. Economic and Social Research Council [ES/L007444/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  20. Medical Research Council [G1000758B, MC_PC_13040, MR/K007017/1, MC_PC_13043, G1000758, MR/K006525/1, MR/M501633/1, MR/M501633/2] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

There is currently no consensus on approaches to defining asthma or assessing asthma outcomes using electronic health record-derived data. We explored these approaches in the recent literature and examined the clarity of reporting. We systematically searched for asthma-related articles published between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2015, extracted the algorithms used to identify asthma patients and assess severity, control and exacerbations, and examined how the validity of these outcomes was justified. From 113 eligible articles, we found significant heterogeneity in the algorithms used to define asthma (n=66 different algorithms), severity (n=18), control (n=9) and exacerbations (n=24). For the majority of algorithms (n=106), validity was not justified. In the remaining cases, approaches ranged from using algorithms validated in the same databases to using nonvalidated algorithms that were based on clinical judgement or clinical guidelines. The implementation of these algorithms was suboptimally described overall. Although electronic health record-derived data are now widely used to study asthma, the approaches being used are significantly varied and are often underdescribed, rendering it difficult to assess the validity of studies and compare their findings. Given the substantial growth in this body of literature, it is crucial that scientific consensus is reached on the underlying definitions and algorithms.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available