ArticleHawai'i journal of medicine & public health : a journal of Asia Pacific Medicine & Public Health2018
Assessing the Accuracy of Physician Self-disclosed PID Reporting: A Comparison of Data from a Physician Survey and Actual PID Case Reports from a State Surveillance System.
Article in Hawai'i journal of medicine & public health : a journal of Asia Pacific Medicine & Public Health, 2018. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pelvic inflammatory disease is a state-mandated notifiable disease in Hawai'i. A survey assessing pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) reporting to the Hawai'i Department of Health (HDOH) PID surveillance system, was administered to physicians in Hawai'i in April 2012. To measure the accuracy of self-disclosed PID reporting, data from the survey were compared to HDOH PID surveillance system case reports. Concordance between the two data sources was assessed using Cohen's kappa statistic. We first linked data by physician name. An adjusted kappa was also calculated to minimize prevalence and bias effects. A second analysis linked data according to physician name or practice setting. In the name-based analysis, the HDOH PID surveillance database successfully matched only ten of 118 physicians (8.5%) who self-disclosed reporting a PID case. Only "slight agreement" (k= 0.09, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.02-0.16) was demonstrated between the two databases. The prevalence-adjusted, bias-adjusted kappa demonstrated "moderate agreement" (κ=0.53, 95% CI: 0.45-0.60). In the second (name or practice-based setting) analysis, 77 physicians with linkages were found in the HDOH surveillance database, reflecting "moderate agreement" (κ=0.52, 95% CI 0.43, 0.61). Our findings provide evidence that individual physicians are submerging their case reports into group practice/HMO aggregate reports and not reporting individually as legally mandated and hence are compromising PID surveillance quality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30324002PMC6176267W3025784853What 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.