Comparison of automated and retrospectively calculated estimated glomerular filtration rate in electronic health record data.

BACKGROUND: Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) is the clinical standard for assessing kidney function and staging chronic kidney disease. Automated reporting of eGFR using the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) study equation was first implemented within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in 2007 with staggered adoption across laboratories. When automated eGFR are not used or unavailable, values are retrospectively calculated using clinical and demographic data that are currently available in the electronic health record (EHR). Due to the dynamic nature of EHRs, current data may not always match past data. Whether and to what extent the practice of re-calculating eGFR on retrospective data differs from using the automated values is unknown. METHODS: We assessed clinical data for patients enrolled in VA who had their first automated eGFR lab in 2013.We extracted the eGFR value, the corresponding serum creatinine value, and patient race, gender, and date of birth from the EHR. The MDRD equation was applied to retrospectively calculate eGFR. Stage of chronic kidney disease (CKD) was defined using both eGFR values. We used Bland-Altman plots and percent agreement to assess the difference between the automated and calculated values. We developed an algorithm to select the most parsimonious parameter set to explain the difference in values and used chart review on a small subsample of patients to determine if one approach more accurately describes the patient at the time of eGFR measurement. RESULTS: We evaluated eGFR data pairs from 266,084 patients. Approximately 33.0% (n = 86,747) of eGFR values differed between automated and retrospectively calculated methods. The majority of discordant pairs were classified as the same CKD stage (n = 74,542, 85.93%). The Bland-Altman plot showed differences in the data pairs were centered near zero (mean difference: 0.8 mL/min/1.73m2) with 95% limits of agreement between - 6.4 and 8.0. A change in recorded age explained 95.6% (n = 78,903) of discordant values and 85.02% (n = 9371) of the discordant stages. CONCLUSIONS: Values of retrospectively calculated eGFR can differ from automated values, but do not always result in a significant classification change. In very large datasets these small differences could become significant.

Improvement evident but still necessary in clinical practice guideline quality: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To review the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) from a wide range of health care topics and report any changes seen since 1992. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science Core Collection, and BIOSIS was conducted in London, Ontario, Canada. Publications were screened to identify those assessing the quality of CPGs using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. Data were gathered regarding year of publication, institution type, health topic, country of origin, domain scores, and final recommendation. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. AGREE II scores from 415 individual CPGs published between 1992 and 2014 were obtained. Domain scores increased significantly over time, and the proportion of guidelines being recommended based on AGREE II assessment was significantly greater after 2010. Domain scores in Applicability and Editorial independence had no significant effect on a CPG's final recommendation, whereas other domains had a significant effect. Finally, international development groups produced CPGs with significantly higher scores. CONCLUSION: This review found a steady improvement in CPG quality over time. This is particularly evident in guidelines published after 2010. However, certain domains that are integral to the methodological quality of CPGs remain unsatisfactorily low.