Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31319802›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical research methodology2019

Current approaches to identify sections within clinical narratives from electronic health records: a systematic review.

Alexandra Pomares-Quimbaya, Markus Kreuzthaler, Stefan Schulz

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medical research methodology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. JSONize: A Scalable Machine Learning Pipeline to Model Medical Notes as Semi-structured Documents.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Alexandra Pomares-QuimbayaPontificia Universidad Javeriana, Cra. 7 No 40-62, Bogotá, 110231, Colombia. pomares@javeriana.edu.co.ORCID 0000-0002-2639-2474
Markus KreuzthalerInstitute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Documentation, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 2, Graz, 8036, Austria.
Stefan SchulzInstitute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Documentation, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 2, Graz, 8036, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe identification of sections in narrative content of Electronic Health Records (EHR) has demonstrated to improve the performance of clinical extraction tasks; however, there is not yet a shared understanding of the concept and its existing methods. The objective is to report the results of a systematic review concerning approaches aimed at identifying sections in narrative content of EHR, using both automatic or semi-automatic methods.

methodsThis review includes articles from the databases: SCOPUS, Web of Science and PubMed (from January 1994 to September 2018). The selection of studies was done using predefined eligibility criteria and applying the PRISMA recommendations. Search criteria were elaborated by using an iterative and collaborative keyword enrichment.

resultsFollowing the eligibility criteria, 39 studies were selected for analysis. The section identification approaches proposed by these studies vary greatly depending on the kind of narrative, the type of section, and the application. We observed that 57% of them proposed formal methods for identifying sections and 43% adapted a previously created method. Seventy-eight percent were intended for English texts and 41% for discharge summaries. Studies that are able to identify explicit (with headings) and implicit sections correspond to 46%. Regarding the level of granularity, 54% of the studies are able to identify sections, but not subsections. From the technical point of view, the methods can be classified into rule-based methods (59%), machine learning methods (22%) and a combination of both (19%). Hybrid methods showed better results than those relying on pure machine learning approaches, but lower than rule-based methods; however, their scope was more ambitious than the latter ones. Despite all the promising performance results, very few studies reported tests under a formal setup. Almost all the studies relied on custom dictionaries; however, they used them in conjunction with a controlled terminology, most commonly the UMLSⓇ metathesaurus.

conclusionsIdentification of sections in EHR narratives is gaining popularity for improving clinical extraction projects. This study enabled the community working on clinical NLP to gain a formal analysis of this task, including the most successful ways to perform it.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsNarrationDictionaries as TopicHumansMachine LearningTerminology as TopicClinical narrativeElectronic health recordFree textMachine learningNatural language processingSection identification

Identifiers

PMID31319802
PMCPMC6637496

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.