Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013 Dec;20(e2):e319-26. doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2013-001952. Epub 2013 Sep 11.

A comparison of phenotype definitions for diabetes mellitus.

Author information

1
Duke University School of Nursing, Durham, North Carolina, USA.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

This study compares the yield and characteristics of diabetes cohorts identified using heterogeneous phenotype definitions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Inclusion criteria from seven diabetes phenotype definitions were translated into query algorithms and applied to a population (n=173 503) of adult patients from Duke University Health System. The numbers of patients meeting criteria for each definition and component (diagnosis, diabetes-associated medications, and laboratory results) were compared.

RESULTS:

Three phenotype definitions based heavily on ICD-9-CM codes identified 9-11% of the patient population. A broad definition for the Durham Diabetes Coalition included additional criteria and identified 13%. The electronic medical records and genomics, NYC A1c Registry, and diabetes-associated medications definitions, which have restricted or no ICD-9-CM criteria, identified the smallest proportions of patients (7%). The demographic characteristics for all seven phenotype definitions were similar (56-57% women, mean age range 56-57 years).The NYC A1c Registry definition had higher average patient encounters (54) than the other definitions (range 44-48) and the reference population (20) over the 5-year observation period. The concordance between populations returned by different phenotype definitions ranged from 50 to 86%. Overall, more patients met ICD-9-CM and laboratory criteria than medication criteria, but the number of patients that met abnormal laboratory criteria exclusively was greater than the numbers meeting diagnostic or medication data exclusively.

DISCUSSION:

Differences across phenotype definitions can potentially affect their application in healthcare organizations and the subsequent interpretation of data.

CONCLUSIONS:

Further research focused on defining the clinical characteristics of standard diabetes cohorts is important to identify appropriate phenotype definitions for health, policy, and research.

KEYWORDS:

Clinical Research; Diabetes; Electronic Health Records; Patient Registries; Phenotypes; Secondary Data Use

PMID:
24026307
PMCID:
PMC3861928
DOI:
10.1136/amiajnl-2013-001952
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Silverchair Information Systems Icon for PubMed Central
    Loading ...
    Support Center