Cited by 4Medical Coding and Health InformationMachine Learning in HealthcareDiabetes Management and Research

Does the encounter type matter when defining diabetes complications in electronic health records?

Open access
Hong, Dongzhe, Shen, Yun, Monnette, Alisha, Liu, Shuqian, Shao, Hui, Nauman, Elizabeth, Price-Haywood, Eboni, Hu, Gang +1 more·2020·Medical Care

Abstract

Background: Electronic health records (EHRs) and claims records are widely used in defining type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) complications across different types of health care encounters. Objective: This study investigates whether using different EHR encounter types to define diabetes complications may lead to different results when examining associations between diabetes complications and their risk factors in patients with T2DM. Research Design: The study cohort of 64,855 adult patients with T2DM was created from EHR data from the Research Action for Health Network (REACHnet), using the Surveillance Prevention, and Management of Diabetes Mellitus (SUPREME-DM) definitions. Incidence of coronary heart disease (CHD) and stroke events were identified using International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9/10 codes and grouped by encounter types: (1) inpatient (IP) or emergency department (ED) type, or (2) any health care encounter type. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate associations between diabetes complications (ie, CHD and stroke) and risk factors (ie, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and hemoglobin A1c). Results: The incidence rates of CHD and stroke in all health care settings were more than twice the incidence rates of CHD and stroke in IP/ED settings. The age-adjusted and multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios for incident CHD and stroke across different levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and hemoglobin A1c were similar between IP/ED and all settings. Conclusion: While there are large variations in incidence rates of CHD and stroke as absolute risks, the associations between both CHD and stroke and their respective risk factors measured by hazard ratios as relative risks are similar, regardless of alternative definitions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/mlr.0000000000001297

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Models constructed with clinical data such as electronic health records, laboratory tests, and imaging are the most widely used due to their high accessibility.

    “At the feature level, models constructed with clinical data such as EHR [148, 149], laboratory tests [150, 151], and imaging [152, 153] are the most widely used due to their high accessibility.”

    From Artificial intelligence-powered prediction of diabetic complications: from clinical data to molecular omics (2026) · cites this paper as [148]

    The Research Design passage describes a model using EHR data, and the passage labeled Abstract > Conclusion says EHRs are widely used to define type 2 diabetes complications in observational studies. The paper does not establish that clinical-data models are the most widely used or that high accessibility explains their use. This source supports the EHR example, but not those broader claims. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [8]Association AD. Economic costs of diabetes in the US in 2017. Diabetes Care. 2018; 41: 917– 928. 29567642 PMC5911784

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hong, D., Shen, Y., Monnette, A., Liu, S., Shao, H., Nauman, E., Price-Haywood, E., Hu, G., & Shi, L.
Affiliations
  • Tulane University (US)
  • Pennington Biomedical Research Center (US)
  • University of Florida (US)
  • Louisiana Public Health Institute (US)
  • Center for Outcomes and Health Services Research, Ochsner Health System, New Orleans, LA
Corresponding author
  • Hong, Dongzhe
  • Monnette, Alisha
  • Liu, Shuqian
  • Shi, Lizheng
Venue
Medical Care
Published
2020-05-14
Volume
58
Pages
S53-S59
ISSN
0025-7079 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3005325749
Cited by
4
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1
FWCI
0.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Medical Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Civil War Book Review (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of General Medical Sciences (U54GM104940)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
Keywords
type 2 diabetes, diabetes complications, coronary artery disease, stroke, electronic health records, inpatient encounters, emergency department visits, LDL cholesterol, HbA1c, risk factor association, incidence rates
MeSH terms
Aged, Coronary Disease, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Emergency Service, Hospital, Female, Humans, Inpatients, Male, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Risk Factors, Proportional Hazards Models, Stroke, Diabetes Complications, Electronic Health Records

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review