ArticlePerspectives in health information managemen2013
Use of structured and unstructured data to identify contraceptive use in women veterans.
Article in Perspectives in health information managemen, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Reproductive Health of Women Veterans: A Systematic Review of the Literature from 2008 to 2017.Seminars in reproductive medicine · 2018Pooled it
- Contraceptive use among women with kidney transplants in the United States.Journal of nephrology · 2022Article
- Contraceptive Care in the Veterans Health Administration.Seminars in reproductive medicine · 2019Review
- An Evidence Map of the Women Veterans' Health Research Literature (2008-2015).Journal of general internal medicine · 2017Review
- Hormonal contraceptive use in HIV-infected women using antiretroviral therapy: A Systematic review.Open access journal of contraception · 2015Article
- Contraceptive Use Among Women With End-Stage Kidney Disease on Dialysis in the United States.Kidney medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Contraceptive use among women Veterans may not be adequately captured using administrative and pharmacy codes. Clinical progress notes may provide a useful alternative. The objectives of this study were to validate the use of administrative and pharmacy codes to identify contraceptive use in Veterans Health Administration data, and to determine the feasibility and validity of identifying contraceptive use in clinical progress notes. The study included women Veterans who participated in the Women Veterans Cohort Study, enrolled in the Veterans Affairs Connecticut Health Care System, completed a baseline survey, and had clinical progress notes from one year prior to survey completion. Contraceptive ICD-9-CM codes, V-codes, CPT codes, and pharmacy codes were identified. Progress notes were annotated to identify contraceptive use. Self-reported contraceptive use was identified from a baseline survey of health habits and healthcare practices and utilization. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value were calculated comparing administrative and pharmacy contraceptive codes and progress note-based contraceptive information to self-report survey data. Results showed that administrative and pharmacy codes were specific but not sensitive for identifying contraceptive use. For example, oral contraceptive pill codes were highly specific (1.00) but not sensitive (0.41). Data from clinical progress notes demonstrated greater sensitivity and comparable specificity. For example, for oral contraceptive pills, progress notes were both specific (0.85) and sensitive (0.73). Results suggest that the best approach for identifying contraceptive use, through either administrative codes or progress notes, depends on the research question.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23861675PMC3709878What 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.