ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2018
Would you like to add a weight after this blood pressure, doctor? Discovery of potentially actionable associations between the provision of multiple screens in primary care.
Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2018. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnosis and Treatment Rules of Chronic Kidney Disease and Nursing Intervention Models of Related Mental Diseases Using Electronic Medical Records and Data Mining.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2021Article
- Would you like to add a weight after this blood pressure, doctor? Discovery of potentially actionable associations between the provision of multiple screens in primary care.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2018Article
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 at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
RATIONALE, AIMS, AND
objectiveGuidelines recommend screening for risk factors associated with chronic diseases but current electronic prompts have limited effects. Our objective was to discover and rank associations between the presence of screens to plan more efficient prompts in primary care.
methodsRisk factors with the greatest impact on chronic diseases are associated with blood pressure, body mass index, waist circumference, glycaemic and lipid levels, smoking, alcohol use, diet, and exercise. We looked for associations between the presence of screens for these in electronic medical records. We used association rule mining to describe relationships among items, factor analysis to find latent categories, and Cronbach α to quantify consistency within latent categories.
resultsData from 92 140 patients in or around Toronto, Ontario, were included. We found positive correlations (lift >1) between the presence of all screens. The presence of any screen was associated with confidence greater than 80% that other data on items with high prevalence (blood pressure, glycaemic and lipid levels, or smoking) would also be present. A cluster of rules predicting the presence of blood pressure were ranked highest using measures of interestingness such as standardized lift. We found 3 latent categories using factor analysis; these were laboratory tests, vital signs, and lifestyle factors; Cronbach α ranged between .58 for lifestyle factors and .88 for laboratory tests.
conclusionsAssociations between the provision of important screens can be discovered and ranked. Rules with promising combinations of associated screens could be used to implement data driven alerts.
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.