Accuracy of Electronic Health Record-Derived Data for the Identification of Incident ADHD

ArticleinJournal of Attention Disorders · February 2014with12 Reads
DOI: 10.1177/1087054713520616 · Source: PubMed
Objective: To assess the accuracy of electronic health record (EHR)-derived diagnoses in identifying children with incident (i.e., newly diagnosed) ADHD. Method: In 10 large health care organizations, electronic diagnoses data were used to identify all potential cases of incident ADHD among 3- through 9-year-old children. A random sample of records was manually reviewed to determine whether a diagnosis of ADHD was documented in clinician notes. Results: From electronic diagnoses data, a total of 7,362 children with incident ADHD were identified. Upon manual review of 500 records, the diagnosis of incident ADHD was confirmed in clinician notes for 71.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] = [56.5, 86.4]) of records for 3- through 5-year-old children and 73.6% (95% CI = [65.6, 81.6]) of records for 6- through 9-year-old children. Conclusion: Studies predicated on the identification of incident ADHD cases will need to carefully consider study designs that minimize the likelihood of case misclassification. (J. of Att. Dis. 2014; XX(X) 1-XX).
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Objective: In both the United States and Europe there has been an increased interest in using comparative effectiveness research of interventions to inform health policy decisions. Prospective observational studies will undoubtedly be conducted with increased frequency to assess the comparative effectiveness of different treatments, including as a tool for "coverage with evidence development," "risk-sharing contracting," or key element in a "learning health-care system." The principle alternatives for comparative effectiveness research include retrospective observational studies, prospective observational studies, randomized clinical trials, and naturalistic ("pragmatic") randomized clinical trials. Methods: This report details the recommendations of a Good Research Practice Task Force on Prospective Observational Studies for comparative effectiveness research. Key issues discussed include how to decide when to do a prospective observational study in light of its advantages and disadvantages with respect to alternatives, and the report summarizes the challenges and approaches to the appropriate design, analysis, and execution of prospective observational studies to make them most valuable and relevant to health-care decision makers. Recommendations: The task force emphasizes the need for precision and clarity in specifying the key policy questions to be addressed and that studies should be designed with a goal of drawing causal inferences whenever possible. If a study is being performed to support a policy decision, then it should be designed as hypothesis testing-this requires drafting a protocol as if subjects were to be randomized and that investigators clearly state the purpose or main hypotheses, define the treatment groups and outcomes, identify all measured and unmeasured confounders, and specify the primary analyses and required sample size. Separate from analytic and statistical approaches, study design choices may strengthen the ability to address potential biases and confounding in prospective observational studies. The use of inception cohorts, new user designs, multiple comparator groups, matching designs, and assessment of outcomes thought not to be impacted by the therapies being compared are several strategies that should be given strong consideration recognizing that there may be feasibility constraints. The reasoning behind all study design and analytic choices should be transparent and explained in study protocol. Execution of prospective observational studies is as important as their design and analysis in ensuring that results are valuable and relevant, especially capturing the target population of interest, having reasonably complete and nondifferential follow-up. Similar to the concept of the importance of declaring a prespecified hypothesis, we believe that the credibility of many prospective observational studies would be enhanced by their registration on appropriate publicly accessible sites (e.g., and in advance of their execution.
    Full-text · Article · Mar 2012
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: To develop a descriptive profile of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) pharmacological treatment patterns in terms of persistence, adherence, augmentation, switching, and dosing changes; and to assess differences in treatment patterns with regard to ADHD medication type, class, and duration of action. This retrospective claims database analysis used medical data, pharmacy data, and enrollment information to examine treatment patterns among patients with at least one claim with a diagnosis code for ADHD and a filled prescription for ADHD medication (index therapy) during the period 01 January 2004 through 30 September 2006. Treatment persistence and adherence (days supplied/days persistent) were calculated. Dose changes, medication switching, and augmentation were analyzed at three levels of comparison: class (stimulant vs nonstimulant [atomoxetine]), drug type (amphetamine vs methylphenidate), and duration of action (short, intermediate, long). Statistical comparisons were made using the chi-square test for proportions and Student's t-test or the F-test from one-way ANOVA for means. Of 60,010 patients meeting eligibility criteria, 58.4% were younger than age 18. Most (78.4%) were prescribed a stimulant as their index therapy. Persistence and adherence were greater for patients on stimulants (vs the nonstimulant), for patients on amphetamines (vs methylphenidates), and for patients on long-acting medications (vs short- and intermediate-acting medications; all p < 0.0001). Index drug dose changes were least likely among individuals taking the nonstimulant (vs stimulants), methylphenidates (vs amphetamines), or intermediate-acting drugs (vs short- and long-acting drugs; all p < 0.0001), and medication switches were more frequent among those on nonstimulants, methylphenidates, or short-acting drugs (all p < 0.0001). Subjects taking long-acting medication were less likely to augment with a drug with a different duration of action than those taking intermediate- or short-acting medication (p < 0.0001). This claims-based study is limited by possible discrepancies between claims and patient behaviors (i.e., a claim for a prescription does not necessarily indicate that the medication was taken as prescribed). Patients were more stable on treatment compared with their respective comparator groups if their index therapy was a stimulant, long-acting drug, or amphetamine.
    Article · Feb 2010
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: This study examined healthcare services used by children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), with and without psychiatric comorbidities. The study was conducted in a large health maintenance organization in the Pacific Northwest on all continuously enrolled children aged 5 to 12 from January 1997 through July 1998. The study measured all outpatient medical care, specialty mental health care services, and prescription drug dispensings from computer records. Children with ADHD, with and without other psychiatric comorbidities, use more general medical services than do other groups of children, including outpatient visits, acute care (emergency room [ER] urgent care) visits. ADHD and other psychiatric comorbidities lead to higher use of specialty mental health services and greater use of psychotropic medications.
    Article · Jul 2004
Show more