ArticleStudies in health technology and informatics2017
Secondary Use of EHR: Interpreting Clinician Inter-Rater Reliability Through Qualitative Assessment.
Article in Studies in health technology and informatics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Leukotriene inhibitors with dexamethasone show promise in the prevention of death in COVID-19 patients with low oxygen saturations.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2022Article
- Study protocol: a clinical trial for improving mental health screening for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander pregnant women and mothers of young children using the Kimberley Mum's Mood Scale.BMC public health · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
In a retrospective secondary-use EHR study identifying a cohort of Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation (NVAF) patients, chart abstraction was done by two sets of clinicians to create a gold standard for risk measures CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED. Inter-rater reliability between each set of clinicians for NVAF and the outcomes of interest were variable, ranging from extremely low agreement to high agreement. To assess the chart abstraction process, a focus group and a survey was conducted. Survey findings revealed patterns of difficulty in assessing certain items dealing with temporality and social data. The focus group raised issues on the quality and completeness of EHR data, including missing encounters, truncated notes, and low granularity. It also raised the issue of the usability of the data system, the Clinical Data Viewer, which did not mirror a live EHR and made it difficult to record outcomes. Finally, the focus group found it was difficult to infer certain outcomes, like severity, from the provided data. These factors produced differences in clinician rated outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28809201PMC5698262W2751132141What 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.