Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2003
Randomised crossover trial comparing the performance of Clinical Terms Version 3 and Read Codes 5 byte set coding schemes in general practice.
Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Data quality and fitness for purpose of routinely collected data--a general practice case study from an electronic practice-based research network (ePBRN).AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2011Article
- A comparison of intermediate and long-acting insulins in people with type 2 diabetes starting insulin: an observational database study.International journal of clinical practice · 2010Article
- A review of auditing methods applied to the content of controlled biomedical terminologies.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2009Review
- Switching from premixed insulin to glargine-based insulin regimen improves glycaemic control in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes: a retrospective primary-care-based analysis.Cardiovascular diabetology · 2009Article
- Improved glycaemic control by switching from insulin NPH to insulin glargine: a retrospective observational study.Cardiovascular diabetology · 2009Article
- Community nursing needs more silver surfers: a questionnaire survey of primary care nurses' use of information technology.BMC nursing · 2004Article
- The clinician's perspective on electronic health records and how they can affect patient care.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2004Review
- Why clinical information standards matter.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2003Article
- The Certainty-Agreement diagram: comparing the functionality of coding schemes in primary care clinical information systems.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2003Article
- Variation of SNOMED CT coding of clinical research concepts among coding experts.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIAArticle
- Use of SNOMED CT to represent clinical research data: a semantic characterization of data items on case report forms in vasculitis research.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIAArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine whether Clinical Terms Version 3 provides greater accuracy and consistency in coding electronic patient records than the Read Codes 5 byte set.
designRandomised crossover trial. Clinicians coded patient records using both schemes after being randomised in pairs to use one scheme before the other.
setting10 general practices in urban, suburban, and rural environments in Norfolk.
participants10 general practitioners. SOURCE OF DATA: Concepts were collected from records of 100 patient encounters.
main outcome measuresPercentage of coded choices ranked as being exact representations of the original terms; percentage of cases where coding choice of paired general practitioners was identical; length of time taken to find a code.
resultsA total of 995 unique concepts were collected. Exact matches were more common with Clinical Terms (70% (95% confidence interval 67% to 73%)) than with Read Codes (50% (47% to 53%)) (P < 0.001), and this difference was significant for each of the 10 participants individually. The pooled proportion with exact and identical matches by paired participants was greater for Clinical Terms (0.58 (0.55 to 0.61)) than Read Codes (0.36 (0.33 to 0.39)) (P < 0.001). The time taken to code with Clinical Terms (30 seconds per term) was not significantly longer than that for Read Codes.
conclusionsClinical Terms Version 3 performed significantly better than Read Codes 5 byte set in capturing the meaning of concepts. These findings suggest that improved coding accuracy in primary care electronic patient records can be achieved with the use of such a clinical terminology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.