RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: With growing availability of digital health data and technology, health-related studies are increasingly augmented or implemented using real world data (RWD). Recent federal initiatives promote the use of RWD to make clinical assertions that influence regulatory decision-making. Our objective was to determine whether traditional real world evidence (RWE) techniques in cardiovascular medicine achieve accuracy sufficient for credible clinical assertions, also known as "regulatory-grade" RWE. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study using electronic health records (EHR), 2010-2016. METHODS: A predefined set of clinical concepts was extracted from EHR structured (EHR-S) and unstructured (EHR-U) data using traditional query techniques and artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, respectively. Performance was evaluated against manually annotated cohorts using standard metrics. Accuracy was compared to pre-defined criteria for regulatory-grade. Differences in accuracy were compared using Chi-square test. RESULTS: The dataset included 10 840 clinical notes. Individual concept occurrence ranged from 194 for coronary artery bypass graft to 4502 for diabetes mellitus. In EHR-S, average recall and precision were 51.7% and 98.3%, respectively and 95.5% and 95.3% in EHR-U, respectively. For each clinical concept, EHR-S accuracy was below regulatory-grade, while EHR-U met or exceeded criteria, with the exception of medications. CONCLUSIONS: Identifying an appropriate RWE approach is dependent on cohorts studied and accuracy required. In this study, recall varied greatly between EHR-S and EHR-U. Overall, EHR-S did not meet regulatory grade criteria, while EHR-U did. These results suggest that recall should be routinely measured in EHR-based studes intended for regulatory use. Furthermore, advanced data and technologies may be required to achieve regulatory grade results.
