ArticleAcute medicine & surgery2017
Better documentation in electronic medical records would lead to an increased use of lower extremity venous ultrasound in the inpatient setting: a retrospective study.
Article in Acute medicine & surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: We hypothesized that the quality of the assessment of abnormal laboratory data in the emergency department (ED) could affect the hospital-attending physicians' decision-making after a patient's hospitalization. To test this hypothesis, we investigated how patients with a positive D-dimer result were reported by ED physicians in electronic medical records, and measured whether lower extremity venous ultrasonography examination was undertaken during hospitalization by the hospital-attending physicians. Methods: In an urban tertiary acute care general hospital in Japan, between January 2012 and December 2013, we included patients hospitalized after a positive D-dimer measurement (≥1.0 μg/mL) that was taken in the emergency department. We retrospectively measured the quality of ED physician assessments. Then we examined whether that affected the decisions of attending physicians to order lower extremity venous ultrasonography examinations during hospitalization. The exposure variable was the quality of the ED physicians' assessment of patients with positive D-dimer results. The outcome was whether a lower extremity venous ultrasonography examination was ordered by the attending physician during hospitalization. Results: When assessments were described by ED physicians for patients with positive D-dimer results, the attending physicians frequently ordered lower extremity venous ultrasonography (odds ratio, 10.74; 95% confidence interval, 5.92-19.50), even if the assessments only contained "copied and pasted" laboratory data (odds ratio, 1.68; 95% confidence interval, 2.10-2.40). Conclusions: Better documentation by ED physicians, regarding patients with positive D-dimer results, strongly affected the decisions made by attending physicians to order lower extremity venous ultrasonography examination.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.