Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27638907›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2017

Predicting neutropenia risk in patients with cancer using electronic data.

Pamala A Pawloski, Avis J Thomas, Sheryl Kane, Gabriela Vazquez-Benitez, Gary R Shapiro, Gary H Lyman

Open access · bronzeAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Personalized cancer supportive care in COVID-19 era.Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology · 2020
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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 4 institutions in 1 country.

Pamala A PawloskiHealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Avis J ThomasHealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Sheryl KaneHealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Gabriela Vazquez-BenitezHealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Gary R ShapiroRegions Hospital Cancer Care Center, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA.
Gary H LymanHutchinson Institute for Cancer Outcomes Research, Seattle, Washington, USA.
HealthPartners · USRegions Hospital · USResearch Network (United States) · USUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesClinical guidelines recommending the use of myeloid growth factors are largely based on the prescribed chemotherapy regimen. The guidelines suggest that oncologists consider patient-specific characteristics when prescribing granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis; however, a mechanism to quantify individual patient risk is lacking. Readily available electronic health record (EHR) data can provide patient-specific information needed for individualized neutropenia risk estimation. An evidence-based, individualized neutropenia risk estimation algorithm has been developed. This study evaluated the automated extraction of EHR chemotherapy treatment data and externally validated the neutropenia risk prediction model. MATERIALS AND

methodsA retrospective cohort of adult patients with newly diagnosed breast, colorectal, lung, lymphoid, or ovarian cancer who received the first cycle of a cytotoxic chemotherapy regimen from 2008 to 2013 were recruited from a single cancer clinic. Electronically extracted EHR chemotherapy treatment data were validated by chart review. Neutropenia risk stratification was conducted and risk model performance was assessed using calibration and discrimination.

resultsChemotherapy treatment data electronically extracted from the EHR were verified by chart review. The neutropenia risk prediction tool classified 126 patients (57%) as being low risk for febrile neutropenia, 44 (20%) as intermediate risk, and 51 (23%) as high risk. The model was well calibrated (Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test = 0.24). Discrimination was adequate and slightly less than in the original internal validation (c-statistic 0.75 vs 0.81).

conclusionChemotherapy treatment data were electronically extracted from the EHR successfully. The individualized neutropenia risk prediction model performed well in our retrospective external cohort.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsElectronic Health RecordsAgedAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsFemaleGranulocyte Colony-Stimulating FactorHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsNeutropeniaRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentROC CurveGranulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factorchemotherapyclinical decision support systemscomputer-based decision supportfebrile neutropeniagranulocyte-colony stimulating factorrisk model

Identifiers

PMID27638907
PMCPMC6277060
OpenAlexW2519219215

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.