How well do various health outcome definitions identify appropriate cases in observational studies

Drug Safety

Volumn 36, Issue SUPPL.1, 2013, Pages

  Hansen, Richard A ^a   Gray, Michael D ^b   Fox, Brent I ^a   Hollingsworth, Joshua C ^a   Gao, Juan ^a   Zeng, Peng ^c  

^a AUBURN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b HEWLETT PACKARD LABORATORIES   (United States)

^c AUBURN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACUTE KIDNEY FAILURE; ARTICLE; CONSENSUS; HEALTH OUTCOMES OF INTEREST; HEART INFARCTION; HUMAN; LIVER INJURY; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

ACUTE KIDNEY INJURY; DRUG-INDUCED LIVER INJURY; DRUG-RELATED SIDE EFFECTS AND ADVERSE REACTIONS; HUMANS; MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY AS TOPIC; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS;

EID: 84892913485     PISSN: 01145916     EISSN: 11791942     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s40264-013-0104-0     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Stang PE, Ryan PB, Racoosin JA, et al. Advancing the science for active surveillance: Rationale and design for the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership. Ann Intern Med. 2010;153(9): 600-6.
2. Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (2010) [cited 2012 October 8]. http://omop.org/HOI.
3. Ryan PB, Madigan D. Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) methods evaluation. OMOP 2011 Symposium; 2011 January 11; Washington, DC.
4. Racoosin JA, Ryan PB. Implications of health outcomes of interest definitions: Acute liver injury case study. OMOP 2011 Symposium; 2011 January 11; Washington, DC.
5. Jinjuvadia K, Kwan W, Fontana RJ. Searching for a needle in a haystack: Use of ICD-9-CM codes in drug-induced liver injury. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102(11):2437-43.
6. Vlasschaert ME, Bejaimal SA, Hackam DG, et al. Validity of administrative database coding for kidney disease: A systematic review. Am J Kidney Dis. 2011;57(1):29-43.
7. Metcalfe A, Neudam A, Forde S, et al. Case definitions for acute myocardial infarction in administrative databases and their impact on in-hospital mortality rates. Health Serv Res. 2013;48(1):290-318.
8. Fox BI, Hollingsworth JC, Gray MD, et al. Developing an expert panel process to refine health outcome definitions in observational data. J Biomed Inform 2013;46(5):795-804.
9. Overhage JM, Ryan PB, Reich CG, et al. Validation of a common data model for active safety surveillance research. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012;19(1):54-60.
10. Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership. OMOP Collaborator - Thonmson Reuters. [March 7, 2012]. http://omop.org/CDMvocabV4.
11. Ryan PB. Lessons for building a risk identification and analysis system. Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Symposium, June 28, 2012. Bethesda, MD. http://omop.org/2012OMOPmeeting.
12. Vessey MP, Doll R. Investigation of relation between use of oral contraceptives and thromboembolic disease. Br Med J. 1968; 2(5599):199-205.
13. Vessey MP. Learning how to control biases in studies to identify adverse effects of drugs. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation. 2006. Accessed 26 June 2013. http://www.jameslindlibrary.org/ illustrating/articles/learning-howto- control-biases-in-studies-to-identify- adverse-ef-2.
14. Katz AJ, Ryan PB, Racoosin JA, et al. Assessment of case definitions for identifying acute liver injury in large observational databases. Drug Saf 2013;36(8):651-61.