RESUMO
Purpose: Use of the electronic health record (EHR) has motivated the need for data standardization. A gap in knowledge exists regarding variations in existing terminologies for defining diabetic retinopathy (DR) cohorts. This study aimed to review the literature and analyze variations regarding codified definitions of DR. Design: Literature review and quantitative analysis. Subjects: Published manuscripts. Methods: Four graders reviewed PubMed and Google Scholar for peer-reviewed studies. Studies were included if they used codified definitions of DR (e.g., billing codes). Data elements such as author names, publication year, purpose, data set type, and DR definitions were manually extracted. Each study was reviewed by ≥ 2 authors to validate inclusion eligibility. Quantitative analyses of the codified definitions were then performed to characterize the variation between DR cohort definitions. Main Outcome Measures: Number of studies included and numeric counts of billing codes used to define codified cohorts. Results: In total, 43 studies met the inclusion criteria. Half of the included studies used datasets based on structured EHR data (i.e., data registries, institutional EHR review), and half used claims data. All but 1 of the studies used billing codes such as the International Classification of Diseases 9th or 10th edition (ICD-9 or ICD-10), either alone or in addition to another terminology for defining disease. Of the 27 included studies that used ICD-9 and the 20 studies that used ICD-10 codes, the most common codes used pertained to the full spectrum of DR severity. Diabetic retinopathy complications (e.g., vitreous hemorrhage) were also used to define some DR cohorts. Conclusions: Substantial variations exist among codified definitions for DR cohorts within retrospective studies. Variable definitions may limit generalizability and reproducibility of retrospective studies. More work is needed to standardize disease cohorts. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
RESUMO
ABSTRACT: Environmental scans determine trends in an organization's or field's internal and external environment. The results can help shape goals, inform strategic decision making, and direct future actions. The Association of Academic Physiatrists convened a strategic planning group in 2020, composed of physiatrists representing a diversity of professional roles, career stages, race and ethnicity, gender, disability status, and geographic areas of practice. This strategic planning group performed an environmental scan to assess the forces, trends, challenges, and opportunities affecting both the Association of Academic Physiatrists and the entire field of academic physiatry (also known as physical medicine and rehabilitation, physical and rehabilitation medicine, and rehabilitation medicine). This article presents aspects of the environmental scan thought to be most pertinent to the field of academic physiatry organized within the following five themes: (1) Macro/Societal Trends, (2) Technological Advancements, (3) Diversity and Global Outreach, (4) Economy, and (5) Education/Learning Environment. The challenges and opportunities presented here can provide a roadmap for the field to thrive within the complex and evolving healthcare systems in the United States and globally.