Observational studyJournal of manipulative and physiological therapeutics2019
Researching the Appropriateness of Care in the Complementary and Integrative Health Professions Part 5: Using Patient Records: Selection, Protection, and Abstraction.
Observational study in Journal of manipulative and physiological therapeutics, 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.
- Article
- Intra- and inter-rater reliability of an electronic health record audit used in a chiropractic teaching clinic system: an observational study.BMC health services research · 2021Observational
- Researching the Appropriateness of Care in the Complementary and Integrative Health Professions Part 4: Putting Practice Back Into Evidence-based Practice by Recruiting Clinics and Patients.Journal of manipulative and physiological therapeutics · 2019Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe purpose of this paper is to describe the 4-step process (consent, selection, protection, and abstraction) of acquiring a large sample of chiropractic patient records from multiple practices and subsequent data abstraction.
methodsFrom April 2017 to December 2017, RAND acquired patient records from 99 chiropractic practices across the United States. The records included patients enrolled in a survey e-study (prospective sample) and a random sample of all clinic patients (retrospective sample) with chronic back or neck pain. Clinic staff were trained to collect the sample, scan, and transfer the records. We designed an online data collection tool for abstraction. Protocols were instituted to protect patient confidentiality. Doctors of chiropractic were selected and trained as abstractors, and a system was established to monitor data collection.
resultsIn compliance with data protection protocols, 3603 patient records were scanned, including 1475 in the prospective sample and 2128 in the random sample. A total of 1716 patients (prospective sample) consented to having their records scanned, but only 1475 could be retrieved. Of records scanned, 19% were unusable owing to illegibility, no care during the period of interest, or poor scanning. The abstractor interrater reliability for appropriateness of care decisions was fair to moderate (κ .38-.48).
conclusionThe acquisition, handling, and abstraction of a large sample of chiropractic records was a complex task with challenges that necessitated adapting planned approaches. Of the records abstracted, many revealed incomplete provider documentation regarding the details of and rationale for care. Better documentation and more standardized record keeping would facilitate future research using patient records.
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.