Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21672911›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA

Comparison of computerized surveillance and manual chart review for adverse events.

Aldo Tinoco, R Scott Evans, Catherine J Staes, James F Lloyd, Jeffrey M Rothschild, Peter J Haug

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
10.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Systematic review and narrative synthesis of computerized audit and feedback systems in healthcare.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Clinical research informatics: a conceptual perspective.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2012
    Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Aldo TinocoDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112, USA. axtinoco@gmail.com
R Scott Evans
Catherine J Staes
James F Lloyd
Jeffrey M Rothschild
Peter J Haug
University of Utah · USIntermountain Healthcare · USBrigham and Women's Hospital · US

Funding

UNIVERSITY OF UTAH MEDICAL INFORMATICS TRAININGT15LM007124 · NLM · UTAH STATE HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM--UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI Karen Louise Eilbeck · 1997 to 2026
$22.0M
NLM NIH HHS 5T 15LM007124NLM NIH HHS T15 LM007124
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo understand how the source of information affects different adverse event (AE) surveillance methods.

designRetrospective analysis of inpatient adverse drug events (ADEs) and hospital-associated infections (HAIs) detected by either a computerized surveillance system (CSS) or manual chart review (MCR). MEASUREMENT: Descriptive analysis of events detected using the two methods by type of AE, type of information about the AE, and sources of the information.

resultsCSS detected more HAIs than MCR (92% vs 34%); however, a similar number of ADEs was detected by both systems (52% vs 51%). The agreement between systems was greater for HAIs than ADEs (26% vs 3%). The CSS missed events that did not have information in coded format or that were described only in physician narratives. The MCR detected events missed by CSS using information in physician narratives. Discharge summaries were more likely to contain information about AEs than any other type of physician narrative, followed by emergency department reports for HAIs and general consult notes for ADEs. Some ADEs found by MCR were detected by CSS but not verified by a clinician. LIMITATIONS: Inability to distinguish between CSS false positives and suspected AEs for cases in which the clinician did not document their assessment in the CSS.

conclusionThe effect that information source has on different surveillance methods depends on the type of AE. Integrating information from physician narratives with CSS using natural language processing would improve the detection of ADEs more than HAIs.

Indexed as

Natural Language ProcessingCross InfectionHumansMedical AuditMedication ErrorsPopulation SurveillanceRetrospective StudiesRisk ManagementSensitivity and SpecificityUtah

Identifiers

PMID21672911
PMCPMC3128408
OpenAlexW2155964536

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.