Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17238402›Full record

Trial reportAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2006

Improving the sensitivity of the problem list in an intensive care unit by using natural language processing.

Stéphane Meystre, Peter Haug

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Impact of problem-based charting on the utilization and accuracy of the electronic problem list.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2018
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Is the problem list in the eye of the beholder? An exploration of consistency across physicians.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2016
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Content and structure of clinical problem lists: a corpus analysis.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2008
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Stéphane MeystreDepartment of Medical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, U.S.
Peter Haug

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To improve the completeness of an electronic problem list, we have developed a system using Natural Language Processing to automatically extract potential medical problems from clinical free-text documents; these problems are then proposed for inclusion in an electronic problem list management application. A prospective randomized controlled evaluation of this system in an intensive care unit is reported here. A total of 105 patients were randomly assigned to a control or an intervention group. In the latter, patients had their documents analyzed by the system and medical problems discovered were proposed for inclusion into their problem list. In this population, our system significantly increased the sensitivity of the problem lists, from 8.9% to 41%, and to 77.4% if problems automatically proposed but not acknowledged by users were also considered.

Indexed as

Medical Records, Problem-OrientedMedical Records Systems, ComputerizedNatural Language ProcessingHospital Information SystemsHumansIntensive Care UnitsProspective Studies

Identifiers

PMID17238402
PMCPMC1839473

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.