TY - JOUR
T1 - Review and evaluation of electronic health records-driven phenotype algorithm authoring tools for clinical and translational research
AU - Xu, Jie
AU - Rasmussen, Luke V.
AU - Shaw, Pamela L.
AU - Jiang, Guoqian
AU - Kiefer, Richard C.
AU - Mo, Huan
AU - Pacheco, Jennifer A.
AU - Speltz, Peter
AU - Zhu, Qian
AU - Denny, Joshua C.
AU - Pathak, Jyotishman
AU - Thompson, William K.
AU - Montague, Enid
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was funded primarily by R01-GM105688 from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences. Additional contribution came from the eMERGE Network sites funded by the National Human Genome Research Institute through the following grants: U01-HG004610 and U01-HG006375 (Group Health Cooperative/University of Washington); U01-HG004608 (Marshfield Clinic); U01-HG04599 and U01-HG06379 (Mayo Clinic); U01-HG004609 and U01-HG006388 (Northwestern University); U01-HG006389 (Essentia Institute of Rural Health); U01-HG04603 and U01-HG006378 (Vanderbilt University); and U01-HG006385 (Vanderbilt University serving as the Coordinating Center). LVR received additional support from NCATS grant UL1TR000150.
Publisher Copyright:
© The Author 2015.
PY - 2015
Y1 - 2015
N2 - Objective To review and evaluate available software tools for electronic health record-driven phenotype authoring in order to identify gaps and needs for future development. Materials and Methods Candidate phenotype authoring tools were identified through (1) literature search in four publication databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus) and (2) a web search. A collection of tools was compiled and reviewed after the searches. A survey was designed and distributed to the developers of the reviewed tools to discover their functionalities and features. Results Twenty-four different phenotype authoring tools were identified and reviewed. Developers of 16 of these identified tools completed the evaluation survey (67% response rate). The surveyed tools showed commonalities but also varied in their capabilities in algorithm representation, logic functions, data support and software extensibility, search functions, user interface, and data outputs. Discussion Positive trends identified in the evaluation included: algorithms can be represented in both computable and human readable formats; and most tools offer a web interface for easy access. However, issues were also identified: many tools were lacking advanced logic functions for authoring complex algorithms; the ability to construct queries that leveraged un-structured data was not widely implemented; and many tools had limited support for plug-ins or external analytic software. Conclusions Existing phenotype authoring tools could enable clinical researchers to work with electronic health record data more efficiently, but gaps still exist in terms of the functionalities of such tools. The present work can serve as a reference point for the future development of similar tools.
AB - Objective To review and evaluate available software tools for electronic health record-driven phenotype authoring in order to identify gaps and needs for future development. Materials and Methods Candidate phenotype authoring tools were identified through (1) literature search in four publication databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus) and (2) a web search. A collection of tools was compiled and reviewed after the searches. A survey was designed and distributed to the developers of the reviewed tools to discover their functionalities and features. Results Twenty-four different phenotype authoring tools were identified and reviewed. Developers of 16 of these identified tools completed the evaluation survey (67% response rate). The surveyed tools showed commonalities but also varied in their capabilities in algorithm representation, logic functions, data support and software extensibility, search functions, user interface, and data outputs. Discussion Positive trends identified in the evaluation included: algorithms can be represented in both computable and human readable formats; and most tools offer a web interface for easy access. However, issues were also identified: many tools were lacking advanced logic functions for authoring complex algorithms; the ability to construct queries that leveraged un-structured data was not widely implemented; and many tools had limited support for plug-ins or external analytic software. Conclusions Existing phenotype authoring tools could enable clinical researchers to work with electronic health record data more efficiently, but gaps still exist in terms of the functionalities of such tools. The present work can serve as a reference point for the future development of similar tools.
KW - Clinical research
KW - Electronic health records
KW - Phenotype algorithm authoring tool
KW - Phenotyping
KW - Review
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84954304571&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84954304571&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1093/jamia/ocv070
DO - 10.1093/jamia/ocv070
M3 - Article
C2 - 26224336
AN - SCOPUS:84954304571
SN - 1067-5027
VL - 22
SP - 1251
EP - 1260
JO - Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
JF - Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
IS - 6
ER -