Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26370237›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of health geographics2015

Use of attribute association error probability estimates to evaluate quality of medical record geocodes.

Christian A Klaus, Luis E Carrasco, Daniel W Goldberg, Kevin A Henry, Recinda L Sherman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of health geographics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Christian A KlausNorth Carolina Central Cancer Registry, Raleigh, NC, USA. Christian.klaus@dhhs.nc.gov.
Luis E CarrascoNorth Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, Raleigh, NC, USA. luis.carrasco@nc.gov.
Daniel W GoldbergDepartment of Geography, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA. Daniel.goldberg@tamu.edu.
Kevin A HenryDepartment of Geography and Urban Studies, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA. khenry1@temple.edu.
Recinda L ShermanNorth American Association of Central Cancer Registries, Springfield, IL, USA. rsherman@naaccr.org.

Funding

CANCER PREVENTION & CONTROL PROGRAM FOR STATE TERRITORIAL & TRIBAL ORGANIZATIONSU58DP003933 · DP · NC STATE DEPT/HLTH & HUMAN SERVICES · PI NELSON, DEBI · 2012 to 2014
$13.9M
NCCDPHP CDC HHS U58 DP003933
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe utility of patient attributes associated with the spatiotemporal analysis of medical records lies not just in their values but also the strength of association between them. Estimating the extent to which a hierarchy of conditional probability exists between patient attribute associations such as patient identifying fields, patient and date of diagnosis, and patient and address at diagnosis is fundamental to estimating the strength of association between patient and geocode, and patient and enumeration area. We propose a hierarchy for the attribute associations within medical records that enable spatiotemporal relationships. We also present a set of metrics that store attribute association error probability (AAEP), to estimate error probability for all attribute associations upon which certainty in a patient geocode depends.

methodsA series of experiments were undertaken to understand how error estimation could be operationalized within health data and what levels of AAEP in real data reveal themselves using these methods. Specifically, the goals of this evaluation were to (1) assess if the concept of our error assessment techniques could be implemented by a population-based cancer registry; (2) apply the techniques to real data from a large health data agency and characterize the observed levels of AAEP; and (3) demonstrate how detected AAEP might impact spatiotemporal health research.

resultsWe present an evaluation of AAEP metrics generated for cancer cases in a North Carolina county. We show examples of how we estimated AAEP for selected attribute associations and circumstances. We demonstrate the distribution of AAEP in our case sample across attribute associations, and demonstrate ways in which disease registry specific operations influence the prevalence of AAEP estimates for specific attribute associations.

conclusionsThe effort to detect and store estimates of AAEP is worthwhile because of the increase in confidence fostered by the attribute association level approach to the assessment of uncertainty in patient geocodes, relative to existing geocoding related uncertainty metrics.

Indexed as

BiasData AccuracyGeographic MappingMedical RecordsMedical Record LinkageNorth CarolinaProbabilityRegistriesRegression Analysis

Identifiers

PMID26370237
PMCPMC4570180

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.