Evaluating construct validity of computable acute respiratory distress syndrome definitions in adults hospitalized with COVID-19: an electronic health records based approach

Abstract

Abstract Background Evolving ARDS epidemiology and management during COVID-19 have prompted calls to reexamine the construct validity of Berlin criteria, which have been rarely evaluated in real-world data. We developed a Berlin ARDS definition (EHR-Berlin) computable in electronic health records (EHR) to (1) assess its construct validity, and (2) assess how expanding its criteria affected validity. Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study at two tertiary care hospitals with one EHR, among adults hospitalized with COVID-19 February 2020-March 2021. We assessed five candidate definitions for ARDS: the EHR-Berlin definition modeled on Berlin criteria, and four alternatives informed by recent proposals to expand criteria and include patients on high-flow oxygen (EHR-Alternative 1), relax imaging criteria (EHR-Alternatives 2–3), and extend timing windows (EHR-Alternative 4). We evaluated two aspects of construct validity for the EHR-Berlin definition: (1) criterion validity: agreement with manual ARDS classification by experts, available in 175 patients; (2) predictive validity: relationships with hospital mortality, assessed by Pearson r and by area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC). We assessed predictive validity and timing of identification of EHR-Berlin definition compared to alternative definitions. Results Among 765 patients, mean (SD) age was 57 (18) years and 471 (62%) were male. The EHR-Berlin definition classified 171 (22%) patients as ARDS, which had high agreement with manual classification (kappa 0.85), and was associated with mortality (Pearson r = 0.39; AUROC 0.72, 95% CI 0.68, 0.77). In comparison, EHR-Alternative 1 classified 219 (29%) patients as ARDS, maintained similar relationships to mortality (r = 0.40; AUROC 0.74, 95% CI 0.70, 0.79, Delong test P = 0.14), and identified patients earlier in their hospitalization (median 13 vs. 15 h from admission, Wilcoxon signed-rank test P < 0.001). EHR-Alternative 3, which removed imaging criteria, had similar correlation (r = 0.41) but better discrimination for mortality (AUROC 0.76, 95% CI 0.72, 0.80; P = 0.036), and identified patients median 2 h (P < 0.001) from admission. Conclusions The EHR-Berlin definition can enable ARDS identification with high criterion validity, supporting large-scale study and surveillance. There are opportunities to expand the Berlin criteria that preserve predictive validity and facilitate earlier identification.

Keywords

• Electronic health records
• Acute respiratory distress syndrome
• Phenotyping
• Coronavirus disease 2019
• Construct validity