ArticlePloS one2019
Generating and evaluating a propensity model using textual features from electronic medical records.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Scalable Feature Engineering from Electronic Free Text Notes to Supplement Confounding Adjustment of Claims-Based Pharmacoepidemiologic Studies.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2023Article
- Data Resource Profile: The Integrated Primary Care Information (IPCI) database, The Netherlands.International journal of epidemiology · 2022Article
- Machine learning for improving high-dimensional proxy confounder adjustment in healthcare database studies: An overview of the current literature.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPropensity score (PS) methods are commonly used to control for confounding in comparative effectiveness studies. Electronic health records (EHRs) contain much unstructured data that could be used as proxies for potential confounding factors. The goal of this study was to assess whether the unstructured information can also be used to construct PS models that would allow to properly deal with confounding. We used an example of coxibs (Cox-2 inhibitors) vs. traditional NSAIDs and the risk of upper gastro-intestinal bleeding as example, since this association is often confounded due to channeling of coxibs to patients at higher risk of upper gastro-intestinal bleeding.
methodsIn a cohort study of new users of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) from the Dutch Integrated Primary Care Information (IPCI) database, we identified all patients who experienced an upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). We used a large-scale regularized regression to fit two PS models using all structured and unstructured information in the EHR. We calculated hazard ratios (HRs) to estimate the risk of UGIB among selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor users compared to nonselective NSAID (nsNSAID) users.
resultsThe crude hazard ratio of UGIB for COX-2 inhibitors compared to nsNSAIDs was 0.50 (95% confidence interval 0.18-1.36). Matching only on age resulted in an HR of 0.36 (0.11-1.16), and of 0.35 (0.11-1.11) when further adjusted for sex. Matching on PS only, the first model yielded an HR of 0.42 (0.13-1.38), which reduced to 0.35 (0.96-1.25) when adjusted for age and sex. The second model resulted in an HR of 0.42 (0.13-1.39), which dropped to 0.31 (0.09-1.08) after adjustment for age and sex.
conclusionsPS models can be created using unstructured information in EHRs. An incremental benefit was observed by matching on PS over traditional matching and adjustment for covariates.
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.