Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2024

Open Access 01-12-2024 | Research

The validity of electronic health data for measuring smoking status: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Authors: Md Ashiqul Haque, Muditha Lakmali Bodawatte Gedara, Nathan Nickel, Maxime Turgeon, Lisa M. Lix

Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making | Issue 1/2024

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Smoking is a risk factor for many chronic diseases. Multiple smoking status ascertainment algorithms have been developed for population-based electronic health databases such as administrative databases and electronic medical records (EMRs). Evidence syntheses of algorithm validation studies have often focused on chronic diseases rather than risk factors. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of smoking status ascertainment algorithms to describe the characteristics and validity of these algorithms.

Methods

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. We searched articles published from 1990 to 2022 in EMBASE, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science with key terms such as validity, administrative data, electronic health records, smoking, and tobacco use. The extracted information, including article characteristics, algorithm characteristics, and validity measures, was descriptively analyzed. Sources of heterogeneity in validity measures were estimated using a meta-regression model. Risk of bias (ROB) in the reviewed articles was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool.

Results

The initial search yielded 2086 articles; 57 were selected for review and 116 algorithms were identified. Almost three-quarters (71.6%) of algorithms were based on EMR data. The algorithms were primarily constructed using diagnosis codes for smoking-related conditions, although prescription medication codes for smoking treatments were also adopted. About half of the algorithms were developed using machine-learning models. The pooled estimates of positive predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity were 0.843, 0.672, and 0.918 respectively. Algorithm sensitivity and specificity were highly variable and ranged from 3 to 100% and 36 to 100%, respectively. Model-based algorithms had significantly greater sensitivity (p = 0.006) than rule-based algorithms. Algorithms for EMR data had higher sensitivity than algorithms for administrative data (p = 0.001). The ROB was low in most of the articles (76.3%) that underwent the assessment.

Conclusions

Multiple algorithms using different data sources and methods have been proposed to ascertain smoking status in electronic health data. Many algorithms had low sensitivity and positive predictive value, but the data source influenced their validity. Algorithms based on machine-learning models for multiple linked data sources have improved validity.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Cowie MR, Blomster JI, Curtis LH, Duclaux S, Ford I, Fritz F, Goldman S, Janmohamed S, Kreuzer J, Leenay M, Michel A. Electronic health records to facilitate clinical research. Clin Res Cardiol. 2017;106:1–9.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Lee S, Xu Y, D'Souza AG, Martin EA, Doktorchik C, Zhang Z, Quan H. Unlocking the potential of electronic health records for health research. Int J Popul Data Sci. 2020;5(1):1123.
3.
Kierkegaard P. Electronic health record: wiring Europe’s healthcare. Comput Law Secur Rev. 2011;27(5):503–15.CrossRef
4.
5.
6.
7.
Barrett JK, Sweeting MJ, Wood AM. Dynamic risk prediction for cardiovascular disease: an illustration using the ARIC study, vol. 36. Handbook of Statistics; 2017. p. 47–65.
8.
Kelsey JL, Kelsey C, Whittemore AS, Whittemore P, Evans AS, Thompson WD, et al. Methods in observational epidemiology. Oxford University Press; 1996. p. 458.
9.
Desai RJ, Solomon DH, Shadick N, Iannaccone C, Kim SC. Identification of smoking using Medicare data—a validation study of claims-based algorithms. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2016;25(4):472–5.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
10.
Chen LH, Quinn V, Xu L, Gould MK, Jacobsen SJ, Koebnick C, Reynolds K, Hechter RC, Chao CR. The accuracy and trends of smoking history documentation in electronic medical records in a large managed care organization. Subst Use Misuse. 2013;48(9):731–42.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Chowdhury M, Cervantes EG, Chan WY, Seitz DP. Use of machine learning and artificial intelligence methods in geriatric mental health research involving electronic health record or administrative claims data: a systematic review. Front Psychiatry . 2021;12:738466.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
12.
Groenhof TK, Koers LR, Blasse E, de Groot M, Grobbee DE, Bots ML, Asselbergs FW, Lely AT, Haitjema S, van Solinge W, Hoefer I. Data mining information from electronic health records produced high yield and accuracy for current smoking status. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;118:100–6.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Yadav P, Steinbach M, Kumar V, Simon G. Mining electronic health records (EHRs): a survey. ACM Comput Surv. 2018;50(6):1–40.CrossRef
14.
Caldwell PH, Bennett T. Easy guide to conducting a systematic review. J Paediatr Child Health. 2020;56(6):853–6.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Deeks JJ, Higgins JP, Altman DG, Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2019. p. 241–84.CrossRef
16.
Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart LA. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: Elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;349:g7647.
17.
18.
Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5:1–10.CrossRef
19.
Belur J, Tompson L, Thornton A, Simon M. Interrater reliability in systematic review methodology: exploring variation in coder decision-making. Sociol Methods Res. 2021;50(2):837–65.MathSciNetCrossRef
20.
21.
Lange RT. Inter-rater reliability. In: Kreutzer JS, DeLuca J, Caplan B, editors. Encyclopedia of clinical neuropsychology. New York, NY: Springer; 2011. p. 1348.CrossRef
22.
Feely A, Lim LS, Jiang D, Lix LM. A population-based study to develop juvenile arthritis case definitions for administrative health data using model-based dynamic classification. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021;21(1):1–3.CrossRef
23.
Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig L, Lijmer JG, Moher D, Rennie D, De Vet HC, Kressel HY. STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies. Clin Chem. 2015;61(12):1446–52.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Weisz JR, Kuppens S, Ng MY, Eckshtain D, Ugueto AM, Vaughn-Coaxum R, Jensen-Doss A, Hawley KM, Krumholz Marchette LS, Chu BC, Weersing VR. What five decades of research tells us about the effects of youth psychological therapy: a multilevel meta-analysis and implications for science and practice. Am Psychol. 2017;72(2):79.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Wallis S. Binomial confidence intervals and contingency tests: mathematical fundamentals and the evaluation of alternative methods. J Quant Linguist. 2013;20(3):178–208.CrossRef
26.
Glover S, Dixon P. Likelihood ratios: a simple and flexible statistic for empirical psychologists. Psychon Bull Rev. 2004;11(5):791–806.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Wang Y, Sohn S, Liu S, Shen F, Wang L, Atkinson EJ, Amin S, Liu H. A clinical text classification paradigm using weak supervision and deep representation. BMC Medical Inform Decis Mak. 2019;19:1–3.CrossRef
28.
Harrer M, Cuijpers P, Furukawa TA, Ebert DD. Doing meta-analysis with R: a hands-on guide. CRC Press; 2021.CrossRef
29.
Viechtbauer W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw. 2010;36(3):1–48.CrossRef
30.
Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, Leeflang MM, Sterne JA, Bossuyt PM, QUADAS-2 Group. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(8):529–36.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Doleman B, Freeman SC, Lund JN, Williams JP, Sutton AJ. Funnel plots may show asymmetry in the absence of publication bias with continuous outcomes dependent on baseline risk: presentation of a new publication bias test. Res Synth Methods. 2020;11(4):522–34.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Chung WS, Kung PT, Chang HY, Tsai WC. Demographics and medical disorders associated with smoking: a population-based study. BMC Public Health. 2020;20:1–8.CrossRef
33.
Wang L, Ruan X, Yang P, Liu H. Comparison of three information sources for smoking information in electronic health records. Cancer Informat. 2016;15:CIN-S40604.CrossRef
34.
Harris DR, Henderson DW, Corbeau A. Improving the utility of tobacco-related problem list entries using natural language processing. In: In: American Medical Informatics Association Annual Symposium Proceedings; 2020. p. 534.
35.
36.
Melzer AC, Pinsker EA, Clothier B, Noorbaloochi S, Burgess DJ, Danan ER, Fu SS. Validating the use of veterans affairs tobacco health factors for assessing change in smoking status: accuracy, availability, and approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18:1–10.CrossRef
37.
Huo J, Yang M, Shih YC. Sensitivity of claims-based algorithms to ascertain smoking status more than doubled with meaningful use. Value Health. 2018;21(3):334–40.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Luck J, Larson AE, Tong VT, Yoon J, Oakley LP, Harvey SM. Tobacco use by pregnant Medicaid beneficiaries: validating a claims-based measure in Oregon. Prev Med Rep. 2020;19:101039.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
39.
Etzioni DA, Lessow C, Bordeianou LG, Kunitake H, Deery SE, Carchman E, Papageorge CM, Fuhrman G, Seiler RL, Ogilvie J, Habermann EB. Concordance between registry and administrative data in the determination of comorbidity: a multi-institutional study. Ann Surg. 2020;272(6):1006–11.PubMedCrossRef
40.
McVeigh KH, Lurie-Moroni E, Chan PY, Newton-Dame R, Schreibstein L, Tatem KS, Romo ML, Thorpe LE, Perlman SE. Generalizability of indicators from the New York city macroscope electronic health record surveillance system to systems based on other EHR platforms. eGEMs. 2017;5(1):25.
41.
Marrie RA, Tan Q, Ekuma O, Marriott JJ. Development of an indicator of smoking status for people with multiple sclerosis in administrative data. Mult Scler J–Exp, Transl Clin. 2022;8(1):20552173221074296.
42.
Floyd JS, Blondon M, Moore KP, Boyko EJ, Smith NL. Validation of methods for assessing cardiovascular disease using electronic health data in a cohort of veterans with diabetes. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2016;25(4):467–71.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Calhoun PS, Wilson SM, Hertzberg JS, Kirby AC, McDonald SD, Dennis PA, Bastian LA, Dedert EA, Mid-Atlantic VA, Workgroup MIRECC, Beckham JC. Validation of veterans affairs electronic medical record smoking data among Iraq-and Afghanistan-era veterans. J Gen Intern Med. 2017;32:1228–34.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
44.
Mu Y, Chin AI, Kshirsagar AV, Bang H. Data concordance between ESRD medical evidence report and Medicare claims: is there any improvement? PeerJ. 2018;6:e5284.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
45.
LeLaurin JH, Gurka MJ, Chi X, Lee JH, Hall J, Warren GW, Salloum RG. Concordance between electronic health record and tumor registry documentation of smoking status among patients with cancer. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2021;5:518–26.PubMedCrossRef
46.
Caccamisi A, Jørgensen L, Dalianis H, Rosenlund M. Natural language processing and machine learning to enable automatic extraction and classification of patients’ smoking status from electronic medical records. Ups J Med Sci. 2020;125(4):316–24.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
47.
Palmer EL, Higgins J, Hassanpour S, Sargent J, Robinson CM, Doherty JA, Onega T. Assessing data availability and quality within an electronic health record system through external validation against an external clinical data source. BMC Medical Inform Decis Mak. 2019;19(1):1–9.CrossRef
48.
Golden SE, Hooker ER, Shull S, Howard M, Crothers K, Thompson RF, Slatore CG. Validity of veterans health administration structured data to determine accurate smoking status. Health Inform J. 2020;26(3):1507–15.CrossRef
49.
Atkinson MD, Kennedy JI, John A, Lewis KE, Lyons RA, Brophy ST. Development of an algorithm for determining smoking status and behaviour over the life course from UK electronic primary care records. BMC Medical Inform Decis Mak. 2017;17(1):1–2.CrossRef
50.
Reps JM, Rijnbeek PR, Ryan PB. Supplementing claims data analysis using self-reported data to develop a probabilistic phenotype model for current smoking status. J Biomed Inform. 2019;97:103264.PubMedCrossRef
51.
Ni Y, Bachtel A, Nause K, Beal S. Automated detection of substance use information from electronic health records for a pediatric population. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2021;28(10):2116–27.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
52.
Khalifa A, Meystre S. Adapting existing natural language processing resources for cardiovascular risk factors identification in clinical notes. J Biomed Inform. 2015;58:S128–32.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
53.
Urbain J. Mining heart disease risk factors in clinical text with named entity recognition and distributional semantic models. J Biomed Inform. 2015;58:S143–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
54.
McVeigh KH, Newton-Dame R, Chan PY, Thorpe LE, Schreibstein L, Tatem KS, Chernov C, Lurie-Moroni E, Perlman SE. Can electronic health records be used for population health surveillance? Validating population health metrics against established survey data. eGEMs. 2016;4(1):1267.
55.
Roberts K, Shooshan SE, Rodriguez L, Abhyankar S, Kilicoglu H, Demner-Fushman D. The role of fine-grained annotations in supervised recognition of risk factors for heart disease from EHRs. J Biomed Inform. 2015;58:S111–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
56.
Gauthier MP, Law JH, Le LW, Li JJ, Zahir S, Nirmalakumar S, Sung M, Pettengell C, Aviv S, Chu R, Sacher A. Automating access to real-world evidence. JTO Clin Res Rep. 2022;3(6):100340.PubMedPubMedCentral
57.
O’Brien EC, Mulder H, Jones WS, Hammill BG, Sharlow A, Hernandez AF, Curtis LH. Concordance between patient-reported health data and electronic health data in the ADAPTABLE trial. JAMA Cardiol. 2022;7(12):1235–43.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
58.
Alhaug OK, Kaur S, Dolatowski F, Småstuen MC, Solberg TK, Lønne G. Accuracy and agreement of national spine register data for 474 patients compared to corresponding electronic patient records. Eur Spine J. 2022;31(3):801–11.PubMedCrossRef
59.
Teng A, Wilcox A. Simplified data science approach to extract social and behavioural determinants: a retrospective chart review. BMJ Open. 2022;12(1):e048397.
60.
McGinnis KA, Skanderson M, Justice AC, Tindle HA, Akgün KM, Wrona A, Freiberg MS, Goetz MB, Rodriguez-Barradas MC, Brown ST, Crothers KA. Using the biomarker cotinine and survey self-report to validate smoking data from United States veterans health administration electronic health records. JAMIA Open. 2022;5(2):ooac040.
61.
McGinnis KA, Justice AC, Tate JP, Kranzler HR, Tindle HA, Becker WC, Concato J, Gelernter J, Li B, Zhang X, Zhao H. Using DNA methylation to validate an electronic medical record phenotype for smoking. Addict Biol. 2019;24(5):1056–65.PubMedCrossRef
62.
Maier B, Wagner K, Behrens S, Bruch L, Busse R, Schmidt D, Schühlen H, Thieme R, Theres H. Comparing routine administrative data with registry data for assessing quality of hospital care in patients with myocardial infarction using deterministic record linkage. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16(1):1–9.CrossRef
63.
Nickel KB, Wallace AE, Warren DK, Ball KE, Mines D, Fraser VJ, Olsen MA. Modification of claims-based measures improves identification of comorbidities in non-elderly women undergoing mastectomy for breast cancer: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16:1–2.CrossRef
64.
Havard A, Jorm LR, Lujic S. Risk adjustment for smoking identified through tobacco use diagnoses in hospital data: a validation study. PLoS One. 2014;9(4):e95029.
65.
Lujic S, Watson DE, Randall DA, Simpson JM, Jorm LR. Variation in the recording of common health conditions in routine hospital data: study using linked survey and administrative data in New South Wales, Australia. BMJ Open. 2014;4(9):e005768.
66.
67.
McGinnis KA, Brandt CA, Skanderson M, Justice AC, Shahrir S, Butt AA, Brown ST, Freiberg MS, Gibert CL, Goetz MB, Kim JW. Validating smoking data from the Veteran’s affairs health factors dataset, an electronic data source. Nicotine Tob Res. 2011;13(12):1233–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
68.
Kim HM, Smith EG, Stano CM, Ganoczy D, Zivin K, Walters H, Valenstein M. Validation of key behaviourally based mental health diagnoses in administrative data: suicide attempt, alcohol abuse, illicit drug abuse and tobacco use. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12(1):1–9.CrossRef
69.
Lee JD, Delbanco B, Wu E, Gourevitch MN. Substance use prevalence and screening instrument comparisons in urban primary care. Subst Abus. 2011;32(3):128–34.PubMedCrossRef
70.
Jollis JG, Ancukiewicz M, DeLong ER, Pryor DB, Muhlbaier LH, Mark DB. Discordance of databases designed for claims payment versus clinical information systems: implications for outcomes research. Ann Intern Med. 1993;119(8):844–50.PubMedCrossRef
71.
Steffen MW, Murad MH, Hays JT, Newcomb RD, Molella RG, Cha SS, Hagen PT. Self-report of tobacco use status: comparison of paper-based questionnaire, online questionnaire, and direct face-to-face interview—implications for meaningful use. Popul Health Manag. 2014;17(3):185–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
72.
Borzecki AM, Wong AT, Hickey EC, Ash AS, Berlowitz DR. Identifying hypertension-related comorbidities from administrative data: what's the optimal approach? Am J Med Qual. 2004;19(5):201–6.PubMedCrossRef
73.
74.
Khor R, Yip WK, Bressel M, Rose W, Duchesne G, Foroudi F. Practical implementation of an existing smoking detection pipeline and reduced support vector machine training corpus requirements. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014;21(1):27–30.PubMedCrossRef
75.
DeJoy S, Pekow P, Bertone-Johnson E, Chasan-Taber L. Validation of a certified nurse-midwifery database for use in quality monitoring and outcomes research. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2014;59(4):438–46.PubMedCrossRef
76.
Zeng QT, Goryachev S, Weiss S, Sordo M, Murphy SN, Lazarus R. Extracting principal diagnosis, co-morbidity and smoking status for asthma research: evaluation of a natural language processing system. BMC Medical Inform Decis Mak. 2006;6(1):1–9.CrossRef
77.
Longenecker JC, Coresh J, Klag MJ, Levey AS, Martin AA, Fink NE, Powe NR. Validation of comorbid conditions on the end-stage renal disease medical evidence report: the CHOICE study. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2000;11(3):520–9.PubMedCrossRef
78.
Meystre SM, Deshmukh VG, Mitchell J. A clinical use case to evaluate the i2b2 Hive: predicting asthma exacerbations. AMIA Ann Symp Proc. 2009;2009:442–6.
79.
Clark C, Good K, Jezierny L, Macpherson M, Wilson B, Chajewska U. Identifying smokers with a medical extraction system. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2008;15(1):36–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
80.
Savova GK, Ogren PV, Duffy PH, Buntrock JD, Chute CG. Mayo clinic NLP system for patient smoking status identification. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2008;15(1):25–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
81.
Mant J, Murphy M, Rose P, Vessey M. The accuracy of general practitioner records of smoking and alcohol use: comparison with patient questionnaires. J Public Health. 2000;22(2):198–201.CrossRef
82.
Yeager DS, Krosnick JA. The validity of self-reported nicotine product use in the 2001–2008 National Health and nutrition examination survey. Med Care. 2010;48:1128–32.
83.
Liu M, Shah A, Jiang M, Peterson NB, Dai Q, Aldrich MC, et al. A study of transportability of an existing smoking status detection module across institutions. AMIA Ann Symp Proc. 2012;2012:577–86.
84.
Figueroa RL, Soto DA, Pino EJ. Identifying and extracting patient smoking status information from clinical narrative texts in Spanish. In: In: 36th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. IEEE; 2014. p. 2710–3.
85.
Teramukai S, Okuda Y, Miyazaki S, Kawamori R, Shirayama M, Teramoto T. Dynamic prediction model and risk assessment chart for cardiovascular disease based on on-treatment blood pressure and baseline risk factors. Hypertens Res. 2016;39(2):113–8.PubMedCrossRef
86.
Damen JA, Hooft L, Schuit E, Debray TP, Collins GS, Tzoulaki I, Lassale CM, Siontis GC, Chiocchia V, Roberts C, Schlüssel MM. Prediction models for cardiovascular disease risk in the general population: systematic review. BMJ. 2016;353:i2416.
87.
88.
89.
Hoeven LR, Bruijne MC, Kemper PF, Koopman MM, Rondeel JM, Leyte A, Koffijberg H, Janssen MP, Roes KC. Validation of multisource electronic health record data: an application to blood transfusion data. BMC Medical Inform Decis Mak. 2017;17(1):1–10.CrossRef
90.
Rahimi AK, Canfell OJ, Chan W, Sly B, Pole JD, Sullivan C, Shrapnel S. Machine learning models for diabetes management in acute care using electronic medical records: a systematic review. Int J Med Inform. 2022;162:104758.CrossRef
91.
Conderino S, Bendik S, Richards TB, Pulgarin C, Chan PY, Townsend J, Lim S, Roberts TR, Thorpe LE. The use of electronic health records to inform cancer surveillance efforts: a scoping review and test of indicators for public health surveillance of cancer prevention and control. BMC Medical Inform Decis Mak. 2022;22(1):1–3.CrossRef
92.
Cook LA, Sachs J, Weiskopf NG. The quality of social determinants data in the electronic health record: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2022;29(1):187–96.CrossRef
93.
Sharabiani MT, Aylin P, Bottle A. Systematic review of comorbidity indices for administrative data. Med Care. 2012;50(12):1109–18.
94.
Vlasschaert ME, Bejaimal SA, Hackam DG, Quinn R, Cuerden MS, Oliver MJ, Iansavichus A, Sultan N, Mills A, Garg AX. Validity of administrative database coding for kidney disease: a systematic review. Am J Kidney Dis. 2011;57(1):29–43.PubMedCrossRef
95.
Lucyk K, Lu M, Sajobi T, Quan H. Administrative health data in Canada: lessons from history. BMC Medical Inform Decis Mak. 2015;15(1):1–6.CrossRef
96.
Birtwhistle R, Keshavjee K, Lambert-Lanning A, Godwin M, Greiver M, Manca D, Lagacé C. Building a pan-Canadian primary care sentinel surveillance network: initial development and moving forward. J Am Board Fam Med. 2009;22(4):412–22.PubMedCrossRef
97.
Tu K, Mitiku TF, Ivers NM, Guo H, Lu H, Jaakkimainen L, Kavanagh DG, Lee DS, Tu JV. Evaluation of electronic medical record administrative data linked database (EMRALD). Am J Manag Care. 2014;20(1):e15–21.PubMed
98.
99.
100.
Samadoulougou S, Idzerda L, Dault R, Lebel A, Cloutier AM, Vanasse A. Validated methods for identifying individuals with obesity in health care administrative databases: a systematic review. Obes Sci Pract. 2020;6(6):677–93.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
101.
McBrien KA, Souri S, Symonds NE, Rouhi A, Lethebe BC, Williamson TS, Garies S, Birtwhistle R, Quan H, Fabreau GE, Ronksley PE. Identification of validated case definitions for medical conditions used in primary care electronic medical record databases: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018;25(11):1567–78.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
102.
Barber C, Lacaille D, Fortin PR. Systematic review of validation studies of the use of administrative data to identify serious infections. Arthritis Care Res. 2013;65(8):1343–57.CrossRef
103.
Canan C, Polinski JM, Alexander GC, Kowal MK, Brennan TA, Shrank WH. Automatable algorithms to identify nonmedical opioid use using electronic data: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017;24(6):1204–10.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
104.
Kroeker K, Widdifield J, Muthukumarana S, Jiang D, Lix LM. Model-based methods for case definitions from administrative health data: application to rheumatoid arthritis. BMJ Open. 2017;7(6):e016173.
105.
Van Gaal S, Alimohammadi A, Yu AY, Karim ME, Zhang W, Sutherland JM. Accurate classification of carotid endarterectomy indication using physician claims and hospital discharge data. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22(1):1–9.
106.
Zeltzer D, Balicer RD, Shir T, Flaks-Manov N, Einav L, Shadmi E. Prediction accuracy with electronic medical records versus administrative claims. Med Care. 2019;57(7):551–9.PubMedCrossRef
107.
Van den Goorbergh R, van Smeden M, Timmerman D, Van Calster B. The harm of class imbalance corrections for risk prediction models: illustration and simulation using logistic regression. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2022;29(9):1525–34.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
108.
Coleman N, Halas G, Peeler W, Casaclang N, Williamson T, Katz A. From patient care to research: a validation study examining the factors contributing to data quality in a primary care electronic medical record database. BMC Fam Pract. 2015;16(1):1–8.CrossRef
109.
O'Donnell S, Palmeter S, Laverty M, Lagacé C. Accuracy of administrative database algorithms for autism spectrum disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and fetal alcohol spectrum disorder case ascertainment: a systematic review. Health Promot Chronic Dis Prev Canada: Res, Policy Pract. 2022;42(9):355.CrossRef
110.
Chen C, Qin Y, Chen H, Zhu D, Gao F, Zhou X. A meta-analysis of the diagnostic performance of machine learning-based MRI in the prediction of axillary lymph node metastasis in breast cancer patients. Insights Imaging. 2021;12:1–2.CrossRef
111.
Furuya-Kanamori L, Xu C, Lin L, Doan T, Chu H, Thalib L, Doi SA. P value–driven methods were underpowered to detect publication bias: analysis of Cochrane review meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;118:86–92.PubMedCrossRef
112.
Al-Azazi S, Singer A, Rabbani R, Lix LM. Combining population-based administrative health records and electronic medical records for disease surveillance. BMC Medical Inform Decis Mak. 2019;19(1):1–2.CrossRef
113.
Hughes DM, El Saeiti R, García-Fiñana M. A comparison of group prediction approaches in longitudinal discriminant analysis. Biom J. 2018;60(2):307–22.MathSciNetPubMedCrossRef
114.
Arribas-Gil A, De la Cruz R, Lebarbier E, Meza C. Classification of longitudinal data through a semiparametric mixed-effects model based on lasso-type estimators. Biometrics. 2015;71(2):333–43.MathSciNetPubMedCrossRef
115.
Miled ZB, Haas K, Black CM, Khandker RK, Chandrasekaran V, Lipton R, Boustani MA. Predicting dementia with routine care EMR data. Artif Intell Med. 2020;102:101771.PubMedCrossRef
116.
Jauk S, Kramer D, Großauer B, Rienmüller S, Avian A, Berghold A, Leodolter W, Schulz S. Risk prediction of delirium in hospitalized patients using machine learning: an implementation and prospective evaluation study. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020;27(9):1383–92.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
117.
James G, Witten D, Hastie T, Tibshirani R. Tree-based methods. In: James G, Witten D, Hastie T, Tibshirani R, editors. An introduction to statistical learning: with applications in R. New York, NY: Springer; 2013. p. 303–35.CrossRef
118.
Thirunavukarasu AJ, Ting DS, Elangovan K, Gutierrez L, Tan TF, Ting DS. Large language models in medicine. Nat Med. 2023;29(8):1930–40.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
The validity of electronic health data for measuring smoking status: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors
Md Ashiqul Haque
Muditha Lakmali Bodawatte Gedara
Nathan Nickel
Maxime Turgeon
Lisa M. Lix
Publication date
01-12-2024
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making / Issue 1/2024
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6947
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-024-02416-3

Other articles of this Issue 1/2024

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2024 Go to the issue

Research

Assessing the research landscape and clinical utility of large language models: a scoping review

Research

Prediction for post-ERCP pancreatitis in non-elderly patients with common bile duct stones: a cross-sectional study at a major Chinese tertiary hospital (2015–2023)

Comment

From algorithms to action: improving patient care requires causality

Research

InsightSleepNet: the interpretable and uncertainty-aware deep learning network for sleep staging using continuous Photoplethysmography

Research

Application of machine learning models on predicting the length of hospital stay in fragility fracture patients

Research

Multi-criteria decision making to validate performance of RBC-based formulae to screen -thalassemia trait in heterogeneous haemoglobinopathies