Display options
Cite
Loughlin AM, Chiuve SE, Reznor G, et al. Method used to identify adenomyosis and potentially undiagnosed adenomyosis in a large, U.S. electronic health record database. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2021;30(12):1675-1686doi: 10.1002/pds.5333.
Loughlin, A. M., Chiuve, S. E., Reznor, G., Doherty, M., Missmer, S. A., Chomistek, A. K., & Enger, C. (2021). Method used to identify adenomyosis and potentially undiagnosed adenomyosis in a large, U.S. electronic health record database. Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety, 30(12), 1675-1686. https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.5333
Loughlin, Anita M, et al. "Method used to identify adenomyosis and potentially undiagnosed adenomyosis in a large, U.S. electronic health record database." Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety vol. 30,12 (2021): 1675-1686. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.5333
Loughlin AM, Chiuve SE, Reznor G, Doherty M, Missmer SA, Chomistek AK, Enger C. Method used to identify adenomyosis and potentially undiagnosed adenomyosis in a large, U.S. electronic health record database. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2021 Dec;30(12):1675-1686. doi: 10.1002/pds.5333. Epub 2021 Jul 29. PMID: 34292640.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2021 Dec;30(12):1675-1686. doi: 10.1002/pds.5333. Epub 2021 Jul 29.

Method used to identify adenomyosis and potentially undiagnosed adenomyosis in a large, U.S. electronic health record database.

Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety

Anita M Loughlin, Stephanie E Chiuve, Gally Reznor, Michael Doherty, Stacey A Missmer, Andrea K Chomistek, Cheryl Enger

Affiliations

  1. Optum Epidemiology, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
  2. CorEvitas LLC, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA.
  3. AbbVie, Inc, North Chicago, Illinois, USA.
  4. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology, Michigan State University, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA.
  5. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

PMID: 34292640 DOI: 10.1002/pds.5333

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of adenomyosis is underestimated due to lack of a specific diagnostic code and diagnostic delays given most diagnoses occur at hysterectomy.

OBJECTIVES: To identify women with adenomyosis using indicators derived from natural language processing (NLP) of clinical notes in the Optum Electronic Health Record database (2014-2018), and to estimate the prevalence of potentially undiagnosed adenomyosis.

METHODS: An NLP algorithm identified mentions of adenomyosis in clinical notes that were highly likely to represent a diagnosis. The anchor date was date of first affirmed adenomyosis mention; baseline characteristics were assessed in the 12 months prior to this date. Characteristics common to adenomyosis cases were used to select a suitable pool of women from the underlying population, among whom undiagnosed adenomyosis might exist. A random sample of this pool was selected to form the comparator cohort. Logistic regression was used to compare adenomyosis cases to comparators; the predictive probability (PP) of being an adenomyosis case was assessed. Comparators having a PP ≥ 0.1 were considered potentially undiagnosed adenomyosis and were used to calculate the prevalence of potentially undiagnosed adenomyosis in the underlying population.

RESULTS: Among 11 456 347 women aged 18-55 years in the underlying population, 19 503 were adenomyosis cases. Among 332 583 comparators, 22 696 women were potentially undiagnosed adenomyosis cases. The prevalence of adenomyosis and potentially undiagnosed adenomyosis was 1.70 and 19.1 per 1000 women aged 18-55 years, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS: Considering potentially undiagnosed adenomyosis, the prevalence of adenomyosis may be 10x higher than prior estimates based on histologically confirmed adenomyosis cases only.

© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Keywords: adenomyosis; algorithm; electronic health record data; methods

References

  1. Agostinho L, Cruz R, Osório F, Alves J, Setúbal A, Guerra A. MRI for adenomyosis: a pictorial review. Insights Imaging. 2017;8:549-556. - PubMed
  2. Struble J, Reid S, Bedaiwy MA. Adenomyosis: a clinical review of a challenging gynecologic condition. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23:164-185. - PubMed
  3. Weiss G, Maseelall P, Schott LL, Brockwell SE, Schocken M, Johnston JM. Adenomyosis a variant, not a disease? Evidence from hysterectomized menopausal women in the study of Women's health across the nation (SWAN). Fertil Steril. 2009;91:201-206. - PubMed
  4. Wright JD, Herzog TJ, Tsui J, et al. Nationwide trends in the performance of inpatient hysterectomy in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122:233-241. - PubMed
  5. Taran FA, Stewart EA, Brucker S. Adenomyosis: epidemiology, risk factors, clinical phenotype and surgical and interventional alternatives to hysterectomy. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2013;73:924-931. - PubMed
  6. Vercellini P, Parazzini F, Oldani S, Panazza S, Bramante T, Crosignani PG. Adenomyosis at hysterectomy: a study on frequency distribution and patient characteristics. Human Reproduct (Oxf, Engl). 1995;10:1160-1162. - PubMed
  7. Morassutto C, Monasta L, Ricci G, Barbone F, Ronfani L. Incidence and estimated prevalence of endometriosis and Adenomyosis in Northeast Italy: a data linkage study. PloS One. 2016;11:e0154227. - PubMed
  8. Champaneria R, Abedin P, Daniels J, Balogun M, Khan KS. Ultrasound scan and magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: systematic review comparing test accuracy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2010;89:1374-1384. - PubMed
  9. Levy G, Dehaene A, Laurent N, et al. An update on adenomyosis. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2013;94:3-25. - PubMed
  10. Reinhold C, Tafazoli F, Mehio A, et al. Uterine adenomyosis: endovaginal US and MR imaging features with histopathologic correlation. Radiographics 1999;19:S147-60. - PubMed
  11. Loughlin AM, Lin N, Abler V, Carroll B. Tardive dyskinesia among patients using antipsychotic medications in customary clinical care in the United States. PloS One. 2019;14:e0216044. - PubMed
  12. Loughlin AM, Qiao Q, Nunes AP, et al. Effectiveness and tolerability of therapy with once-weekly Exenatide versus basal insulin among injectable-naive patients with type 2 diabetes in a real-world setting in the United States. Diabetes Spect. 2018;31:129-137. - PubMed
  13. Bertoia ML, Spalding WM, Yee KS, Kando JC, Bulik CM, Seeger JS. Treatment characteristics of patient with binge-eating disorder. International Conference on Pharmacoepidemiology and Therapeutic Risk Management. Prague, Czech Republic; 2018. - PubMed
  14. Nunes AP, Iglay K, Radican L, et al. Hypoglycaemia seriousness and weight gain as determinants of cardiovascular disease outcomes among sulfonylurea users. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2017;19:1425-1435. - PubMed
  15. Nunes AP, Liang C, Gradishar WJ, et al. U.S. prevalence of endocrine therapy-naïve locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. Current Oncol (Toronto, Ont). 2019;26:e180-e187. - PubMed
  16. Spalding W, Bertoia ML, Bulik C, Lu M, Akinwonmi A, Seeger J. A retrospective cohort study of suicidality among patients with binge eating disorder. Psych Congress. San Diego, CA; 2019. - PubMed
  17. Loughlin AM, Qiao Q, Nunes AP, et al. Effectiveness and tolerability of therapy with exenatide once weekly vs basal insulin among injectable-drug-naive elderly or renal impaired patients with type 2 diabetes in the United States. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2018;20:898-909. - PubMed
  18. Nunes AP, Loughlin AM, Qiao Q, et al. Tolerability and effectiveness of Exenatide once weekly relative to basal insulin among type 2 diabetes patients of different races in routine care. Diabetes Ther. 2017;8:1349-1364. - PubMed
  19. Guidelines for good pharmacoepidemiology practices (GPP). Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2008;17:200-208. - PubMed
  20. Char DS, Shah NH, Magnus D. Implementing machine learning in health care - addressing ethical challenges. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:981-983. - PubMed
  21. Brosens I, Gordts S, Habiba M, Benagiano G. Uterine cystic adenomyosis: a disease of younger women. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2015;28:420-426. - PubMed
  22. Shafrir AL, Farland LV, Shah DK, et al. Risk for and consequences of endometriosis: a critical epidemiologic review. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;51:1-15. - PubMed
  23. Loughlin J, Quinn S, Rivero E, et al. Tegaserod and the risk of cardiovascular ischemic events: an observational cohort study. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol Ther. 2010;15:151-157. - PubMed

MeSH terms

Publication Types