Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22335391›Full record

ArticleUpsala journal of medical sciences2012

Automated data extraction--a feasible way to construct patient registers of primary care utilization.

Mats Martinell, Jan Stålhammar, Johan Hallqvist

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Upsala journal of medical sciences, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–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. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Observational
  9. Observational
  10. Factors associated with lung cancer in COPD patients.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2018
    Observational
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Clinical Effectiveness of Liraglutide vs Sitagliptin on Glycemic Control and Body Weight in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Retrospective Assessment in Sweden.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2016 · on this map
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. 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

3 authors.

Mats MartinellDepartment of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Uppsala, Sweden.
Jan Stålhammar
Johan Hallqvist

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionElectronic medical records (EMRs) enable analysis of health care data by using data mining techniques to build research databases. Though the reliability of the data extraction process is crucial for the credibility of the final analysis, there are few published validations of this process. In this paper we validate the performance of an automated data mining tool on EMR in a primary care setting.

methodsThe Pygargus Customized eXtraction Program (CXP) was programmed to find and then extract data from patients meeting criteria for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) at one primary health care clinic (PHC). The ability of CXP to extract relevant cases was assessed by comparing cases extracted by an EMR integrated search engine. The concordance of extracted data with the original EMR source was manually controlled.

resultsPrevalence of T2DM was 4.0%, which correspond well to previous estimations. By searching for drug prescriptions, diagnosis codes, and laboratory values, 38%, 53%, and 91% of relevant cases were found, respectively. The sensitivity of CXP regarding extraction of relevant cases was 100%. The specificity was 99.9% due to 12 non-T2DM cases extracted. The congruity at single-item level was 99.6%. The 13 incorrect data items were all located in the same structural module.

conclusionThe CXP is a reliable and accurate data mining tool to extract selective data from EMR.

Indexed as

AutomationRegistriesFeasibility StudiesHumansPrimary Health Care

Identifiers

PMID22335391
PMCPMC3282243

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.