ArticlePloS one2018
Adverse event detection by medical record review is reproducible, but the assessment of their preventability is not.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- The problem with the existing reporting standards for adverse event and medical error research.BMJ quality & safety · 2025Article
- Why identifying adverse events in paediatric emergency care matters.BMJ quality & safety · 2022Article
- A Narrative Review of Adverse Event Detection, Monitoring, and Prevention in Indian Hospitals.Cureus · 2022Review
- The Korea National Patient Safety Incidents Inquiry Survey: Feasibility of Medical Record Review for Detecting Adverse Events in Regional Public Hospitals.Journal of patient safety · 2022Review
- Article
- Incident Reporting System in an Italian University Hospital: A New Tool for Improving Patient Safety.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Limited external reproducibility restricts the use of medical record review for benchmarking.BMJ open quality · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the reproducibility of adverse event evaluation by a medical record review committee.
designCross-sectional reanalysis of medical records.
interventionReviewers re-examined fifty medical records of deceased patients regarding the presence of adverse events, their potential preventability and their possible contribution to death. Also we investigated the root causes of the preventable AEs. Differences between the first and second assessment were calculated.
resultsThe Kappa on the presence of an adverse event was 0.64 and 0.32 for the potential preventability. The intrarater agreement showed a Kappa of 0.61 on the adverse event presence and 0.64 for the potential preventability. Interrater agreement showed a Kappa of 0.66 for the adverse event presence and 0.03 for the potential preventability.
conclusionWe found a fair reproducibility for the detection of adverse events, but a poor reproducibility for the potential preventability. Possibly this was caused by lack of a definition for the preventability of adverse events. We think giving feedback to professionals using the results of medical record review remains valuable, but an improvement of its reproducibility is essential. To our opinion an international consensus on what exactly constitutes preventability of adverse events and agreement on a definition is necessary. This would result in more comparable studies in this field and could then be more informative on the ideal procedure to avoid certain potentially preventable adverse events in the future.
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.