Back

A case is not a case is not a case - challenges and solutions in determining urolithiasis caseloads using the digital infrastructure of a clinical data warehouse

Schoenthaler, M.; Hempen, N.; Weymann, M.; von Bargen, M. F.; Glienke, M.; Elsaesser, A.; Behrens, M.; Binder, H.; Binder, N.

2024-09-14 health informatics
10.1101/2024.09.13.24313333
Show abstract

BackgroundTo provide more evidence in urolithiasis research, we have established the German Nationwide Register for RECurrent URolithiasis (RECUR) using local clinical data warehouses (CDWH). For RECUR and other registers relying on digitalized clinical data, it is crucial to ensure the datas reliability for answering scientific questions. In this work, we aim to compare the results of different CDWH-based queries on urolithiasis cases next to manual case extraction from the primary source. MethodsSources for data extraction included the Medical Center University of Freiburg (MCUF) hospital information system (HIS), MCUF performance data (a clinical data set with merged data from patients including data from various time points throughout their treatment), and MCUF reimbursement data. We extracted data on caseloads in urolithiasis algorithmically (performance and reimbursement data) and compared those to a reference group compiled of manually extracted data from the local HIS and algorithmically extracted data. ResultsAlgorithmic extraction based on performance data resulted in correct and complete case identification as compared to the reference group. The case numbers from manual extraction from HIS data and algorithmic extraction from reimbursement data differed by 14% and 12%, respectively. The reasons for deviations in HIS data included human errors and a lack of data availability from different wards. Deviations in reimbursement data arose primarily due to the merging of cases in the context of reimbursement mechanisms. As the CDWH at MCUF is part of the German Medical Informatics Initiative (MII), the results can be transferred to other medical centers with similar CDWH structure. ConclusionsThe current study provides firm evidence of the importance of clearly defining a studys target variable, e.g., urolithiasis cases, and a thorough understanding of the data sources and modes used to extract the target data. Our work clearly shows that, depending on various data sources, a case is not a case is not a case.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
based on 36 papers
Top 0.4%
12.5%
2
JAMIA Open
based on 35 papers
Top 0.3%
12.5%
3
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
based on 53 papers
Top 2%
7.5%
4
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
based on 13 papers
Top 0.1%
7.5%
5
International Journal of Medical Informatics
based on 25 papers
Top 0.4%
6.4%
6
JMIR Medical Informatics
based on 16 papers
Top 0.4%
6.4%
50% of probability mass above
7
PLOS ONE
based on 1737 papers
Top 71%
4.7%
8
BMJ Open
based on 553 papers
Top 29%
2.9%
9
Scientific Reports
based on 701 papers
Top 52%
2.9%
10
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
based on 37 papers
Top 3%
2.4%
11
Cureus
based on 64 papers
Top 10%
1.6%
12
Scientific Data
based on 30 papers
Top 2%
1.6%
13
BMC Medical Research Methodology
based on 41 papers
Top 2%
1.6%
14
BMC Health Services Research
based on 43 papers
Top 3%
1.3%
15
Informatics in Medicine Unlocked
based on 11 papers
Top 2%
1.3%
16
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
based on 14 papers
Top 3%
1.2%
17
Frontiers in Public Health
based on 135 papers
Top 22%
1.2%
18
BMJ Open Quality
based on 15 papers
Top 2%
1.2%
19
Journal of Medical Internet Research
based on 81 papers
Top 14%
0.8%
20
Frontiers in Digital Health
based on 18 papers
Top 4%
0.8%
21
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
based on 116 papers
Top 25%
0.7%
22
JAMA Network Open
based on 125 papers
Top 21%
0.7%
23
Journal of Translational Medicine
based on 21 papers
Top 3%
0.7%
24
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
based on 45 papers
Top 14%
0.7%
25
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
based on 15 papers
Top 2%
0.7%
26
European Radiology
based on 11 papers
Top 3%
0.7%
27
Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
based on 12 papers
Top 2%
0.7%
28
American Journal of Infection Control
based on 12 papers
Top 0.9%
0.7%
29
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
based on 12 papers
Top 2%
0.7%
30
PLOS Digital Health
based on 88 papers
Top 13%
0.7%