BACKGROUND: Clinical use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is increasing storage of CGM-related documents in electronic health records (EHR)
however, the standardization of CGM storage is lacking. We aimed to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of CGM Ambulatory Glucose Profile (AGP) classification criteria. METHODS: We randomly chose 2244 (18.1%) documents from NYU Langone Health. Our document classification algorithm: (1) separated multiple-page documents into a single-page image
(2) rotated all pages into an upright orientation
(3) determined types of devices using optical character recognition
and (4) tested for the presence of particular keywords in the text. Two experts in using CGM for research and clinical practice conducted an independent manual review of 62 (2.8%) reports. We calculated sensitivity (correct classification of CGM AGP report) and specificity (correct classification of non-CGM report) by comparing the classification algorithm against manual review. RESULTS: Among 2244 documents, 1040 (46.5%) were classified as CGM AGP reports (43.3% FreeStyle Libre and 56.7% Dexcom), 1170 (52.1%) non-CGM reports (eg, progress notes, CGM request forms, or physician letters), and 34 (1.5%) uncertain documents. The agreement for the evaluation of the documents between the two experts was 100% for sensitivity and 98.4% for specificity. When comparing the classification result between the algorithm and manual review, the sensitivity and specificity were 95.0% and 91.7%. CONCLUSION: Nearly half of CGM-related documents were AGP reports, which are useful for clinical practice and diabetes research
however, the remaining half are other clinical documents. Future work needs to standardize the storage of CGM-related documents in the EHR.