ArticleProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2011
Use of electronic medical records to identify patients at risk for prostate cancer in an academic institution.
Article in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cancer Registry Enrichment via Linkage with Hospital-Based Electronic Medical Records: A Pilot Investigation.Journal of registry management · 2024Article
- Extracting data from electronic medical records: validation of a natural language processing program to assess prostate biopsy results.World journal of urology · 2014Article
- Towards prevention of acute syndromes: electronic identification of at-risk patients during hospital admission.Applied clinical informatics · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
One purported advantage of electronic medical records (EMRs) is to improve patient care. This study uses a search of EMR to identify patients at risk for prostate cancer who were not evaluated by an urologist. The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (UTSW) has an institutional outpatient EMR that is used by all providers in all specialties. Since March 2009, all PSA tests were reported with specific interpretative comments including a recommendation for referral to urology for a PSA >2.5 ng ml(-1). All PSA tests were performed on campus since institution of these recommendations were analyzed, and charts reviewed for all patients not seen in urology with a serum PSA >2.5 ng ml(-1). Of the 2884 non-urology patients that had a serum PSA drawn between March 2009 and February 2010 at UTSW, 293 patients had a serum PSA >2.5 ng ml(-1). Of these, 39 patients had known prostate cancer and were seeing an oncologist. There were 59 patients seeing urologists outside the institution. A total of 195 patients were not seen by an urologist and only 11 patients were recommended to see one but did not make an appointment. There were 151 patients with more than one PSA in the system, and of these 103 had a rise in PSA with a median rise of 0.53 ng ml(-1) per year. EMR allows identification of patients at increased risk of prostate cancer who are not evaluated. Prospective studies are needed to identify ways to improve appropriate evaluation and detection of prostate cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21151199What 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.