Purpose To perform a systematic review of the validity of algorithms for identifying cerebrovascular accidents (CVAs) or transient ischemic attacks (TIAs) using administrative and claims data. Methods PubMed and Iowa Drug Information Service (IDIS) searches of the English language literature were performed to identify studies published between 1990 and 2010 that evaluated the validity of algorithms for identifying CVAs (ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes, intracranial hemorrhage and subarachnoid hemorrhage) and/or TIAs in administrative data. Two study investigators independently reviewed the abstracts and articles to determine relevant studies according to pre-specified criteria. Results A total of 35 articles met the criteria for evaluation. Of these, 26 articles provided data to evaluate the validity of stroke, 7 reported the validity of TIA, 5 reported the validity of intracranial bleeds (intracerebral hemorrhage and subarachnoid hemorrhage), and 10 studies reported the validity of algorithms to identify the composite endpoints of stroke/TIA or cerebrovascular disease. Positive predictive values (PPVs) varied depending on the specific outcomes and algorithms evaluated. Specific algorithms to evaluate the presence of stroke and intracranial bleeds were found to have high PPVs (80% or greater). Algorithms to evaluate TIAs in adult populations were generally found to have PPVs of 70% or greater. Conclusions The algorithms and definitions to identify CVAs and TIAs using administrative and claims data differ greatly in the published literature. The choice of the algorithm employed should be determined by the stroke subtype of interest.
Purpose To identify and describe the validity of algorithms used to detect heart failure (HF) using administrative and claims data sources. Methods Systematic review of PubMed and Iowa Drug Information Service (IDIS) searches of the English language were performed to identify studies published between 1990 and 2010 that evaluated the validity of algorithms for the identification of patients with HF using and claims data. Abstracts and articles were reviewed by two study investigators to determine their relevance based on predetermined criteria. Results The initial search strategy identified 887 abstracts. Of these, 499 full papers were reviewed and 35 studies included data to evaluate the validity of identifying patients with HF. Positive predictive values (PPVs) were in the acceptable to high range, with most being very high (>90%). Studies that included patients with a primary hospital discharge diagnosis of ICD-9 code 428.X had the highest PPV and specificity for HF. PPVs for this algorithm ranged from 84% - 100%. This algorithm, however, may compromise sensitivity since many HF patients are managed on an outpatient basis. The most common ‘gold standard’ for the validation of HF was the Framingham Heart Study criteria. Conclusions The algorithms and definitions employed to identify HF using administrative and claims data perform well, particularly when using a primary hospital discharge diagnosis. Attention should be paid to whether patients who are managed on an outpatient basis are included in the study sample. Including outpatient codes in the described algorithms would increase the sensitivity for identifying new cases of HF.
OBJECTIVES: Describe rates of adherence for sickle cell disease (SCD) medications, identify patient and medication characteristics associated with nonadherence, and determine the effect of nonadherence and moderate adherence (defined as taking 60%-80% of doses) on clinical outcomes. METHODS:In February 2012 we systematically searched 6 databases for peer-reviewed articles published after 1940. We identified articles evaluating medication adherence among patients ,25 years old with SCD. Two authors reviewed each article to determine whether it should be included. Two authors extracted data, including medication studied, adherence measures used, rates of adherence, and barriers to adherence. RESULTS:Of 24 articles in the final review, 23 focused on 1 medication type: antibiotic prophylaxis (13 articles), iron chelation (5 articles), or hydroxyurea (5 articles). Adherence rates ranged from 16% to 89%; most reported moderate adherence. Medication factors contributed to adherence. For example, prophylactic antibiotic adherence was better with intramuscular than oral administration. Barriers included fear of side effects, incorrect dosing, and forgetting. Nonadherence was associated with more vaso-occlusive crises and hospitalizations. The limited data available on moderate adherence to iron chelation and hydroxyurea indicates some clinical benefit. CONCLUSIONS:Moderate adherence is typical among pediatric patients with SCD. Multicomponent interventions are needed to optimally deliver life-changing medications to these children and should include routine monitoring of adherence, support to prevent mistakes, and education to improve understanding of medication risks and benefits. Pediatrics
As emergency department (ED) patient volumes increase throughout the United States, are patients waiting longer to see an ED physician? We evaluated the change in wait time to see an ED physician from 1997 to 2004 for all adult ED patients, patients diagnosed with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and patients whom triage personnel designated as needing "emergent" attention. Increases in wait times of 4.1 percent per year occurred for all patients but were especially pronounced for patients with AMI, for whom waits increased 11.2 percent per year. Blacks, Hispanics, women, and patients seen in urban EDs waited longer than other patients did. [Health Affairs 27, no. 2 (2008)
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.