6533b85dfe1ef96bd12be84f

RESEARCH PRODUCT

Administrative Coding in Electronic Health Care Record‐Based Research of NAFLD: An Expert Panel Consensus Statement

Henning GrønbækJeffrey V. LazarusMichelle T. LongIan A. RoweYoosoo ChangJörn M. SchattenbergNick SheronPhilip N. NewsomePhilip N. NewsomeAlina M. AllenFredrik ÅBergLeon A. AdamsHannes HagströmHannes HagströmTracey G. SimonShira Zelber-sagiYusuf YilmazElliot B. TapperSarah H. WildChristopher D. ByrneChristopher D. ByrneSeungho RyuJennifer R. KramerVincent Wai-sun WongPeter Uhd JepsenMona H IsmailFasiha KanwalMarina SerperRohit Loomba

subject

0301 basic medicinemedicine.medical_specialtyFIBROSIS STAGEBiomedical ResearchConsensusClinical SciencesImmunologyDiseaseMedical Biochemistry and MetabolomicsDIAGNOSISVALIDATIONArticle03 medical and health sciences0302 clinical medicineClinical ResearchNon-alcoholic Fatty Liver DiseaseEpidemiologyHealth caremedicineElectronic Health RecordsHumansGeneralizability theoryALGORITHMFATTY LIVER-DISEASEStatement (computer science)Gastroenterology & HepatologyHepatologybusiness.industryMORTALITYComparabilityClinical CodingReference Standards3. Good healthGood Health and Well Being030104 developmental biology3121 General medicine internal medicine and other clinical medicineFamily medicineInclusion and exclusion criteria030211 gastroenterology & hepatologyPatient SafetybusinessPsychologyREAL-WORLDCoding (social sciences)

description

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Electronic health record (EHR)-based research allows the capture of large amounts of data, which is necessary in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), where the risk of clinical liver outcomes is generally low. The lack of consensus on which International Classification of Disease (ICD) codes should be used as exposures and outcomes limits comparability and generalizability of results across studies. We aimed to establish consensus among a panel of experts on ICD codes that could become the reference standard and provide guidance around common methodological issues.APPROACH AND RESULTS: Researchers with an interest in EHR-based NAFLD research were invited to collectively define which administrative codes are most appropriate for documenting exposures and outcomes. We used a modified Delphi approach to reach consensus on several commonly encountered methodological challenges in the field. After two rounds of revision, a high level of agreement (>67%) was reached on all items considered. Full consensus was achieved on a comprehensive list of administrative codes to be considered for inclusion and exclusion criteria in defining exposures and outcomes in EHR-based NAFLD research. We also provide suggestions on how to approach commonly encountered methodological issues and identify areas for future research.CONCLUSIONS: This expert panel consensus statement can help harmonize and improve generalizability of EHR-based NAFLD research.

https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.31726