Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Health Promot Chronic Dis Prev Can. 2022 Sep;42(9):355-383. doi: 10.24095/hpcdp.42.9.01.
The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review to assess the validity of administrative database algorithms used to identify cases of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD).
MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health and PsycInfo were searched for studies that validated algorithms for the identification of ASD, ADHD and FASD in administrative databases published between 1995 and 2021 in English or French. The grey literature and reference lists of included studies were also searched. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, extracted relevant information, conducted reporting quality, risk of bias and applicability assessments, and synthesized the evidence qualitatively. PROSPERO CRD42019146941.
Out of 48 articles assessed at full-text level, 14 were included in the review. No studies were found for FASD. Despite potential sources of bias and significant between-study heterogeneity, results suggested that increasing the number of ASD diagnostic codes required from a single data source increased specificity and positive predictive value at the expense of sensitivity. The best-performing algorithms for the identification of ASD were based on a combination of data sources, with physician claims database being the single best source. One study found that education data might improve the identification of ASD (i.e. higher sensitivity) in school-aged children when combined with physician claims data; however, additional studies including cases without ASD are required to fully evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of such algorithms. For ADHD, there was not enough information to assess the impact of number of diagnostic codes or additional data sources on algorithm accuracy.
There is some evidence to suggest that cases of ASD and ADHD can be identified using administrative data; however, studies that assessed the ability of algorithms to discriminate reliably between cases with and without the condition of interest were lacking. No evidence exists for FASD. Methodologically higher-quality studies are needed to understand the full potential of using administrative data for the identification of these conditions.
本研究旨在进行系统评价,以评估用于识别自闭症谱系障碍(ASD)、注意力缺陷/多动障碍(ADHD)和胎儿酒精谱系障碍(FASD)的行政数据库算法的有效性。
检索了 MEDLINE、Embase、全球卫生和 PsycInfo 数据库,以获取 1995 年至 2021 年期间以英文或法文发表的用于识别行政数据库中 ASD、ADHD 和 FASD 的算法的验证研究。还检索了纳入研究的灰色文献和参考文献列表。两名审查员独立筛选文献,提取相关信息,进行报告质量、偏倚风险和适用性评估,并定性综合证据。PROSPERO CRD42019146941。
在进行全文评估的 48 篇文章中,有 14 篇被纳入综述。未发现 FASD 的研究。尽管存在潜在的偏倚来源和显著的研究间异质性,但结果表明,从单一数据源增加 ASD 诊断代码的数量会以牺牲敏感性为代价提高特异性和阳性预测值。用于识别 ASD 的性能最佳的算法基于数据源的组合,其中医生索赔数据库是唯一最好的来源。一项研究发现,将教育数据与医生索赔数据相结合,可能会提高学龄儿童 ASD 的识别率(即更高的敏感性);然而,需要更多包括无 ASD 病例的研究来全面评估此类算法的诊断准确性。对于 ADHD,没有足够的信息来评估诊断代码数量或额外数据源对算法准确性的影响。
有一些证据表明,可以使用行政数据来识别 ASD 和 ADHD 病例;然而,缺乏评估算法是否能够可靠地区分有和无相关疾病病例的能力的研究。没有 FASD 的证据。需要方法学上更高质量的研究来了解使用行政数据识别这些疾病的全部潜力。