ArticleAIDS research and human retroviruses2020
Computerized Adjudication of Coronary Heart Disease Events Using the Electronic Medical Record in HIV Clinical Research: Possibilities and Challenges Ahead.
Article in AIDS research and human retroviruses, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
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
Abstract
This pilot study assessed feasibility of computer-assisted electronic medical record (EMR) abstraction to ascertain coronary heart disease (CHD) event hospitalizations. We included a sample of 87 hospitalization records from participants the University of North Carolina (UNC) site of the Women's Interagency HIV Study (WIHS) and UNC Center for AIDS Research (CFAR) HIV Clinical Cohort who were hospitalized within UNC Healthcare System from July 2004 to July 2015. We compared a computer algorithm utilizing diagnosis/procedure codes, medications, and cardiac enzyme levels to adjudicate CHD events [myocardial infarction (MI)/coronary revascularization] from the EMR to standardized manual chart adjudication. Of 87 hospitalizations, 42 were classified as definite, 25 probable, and 20 non-CHD events by manual chart adjudication. A computer algorithm requiring presence of ≥1 CHD-related International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision (ICD-9)/Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code correctly identified 24 of 42 definite (57%), 29 of 67 probable/definite CHD (43%), and 95% of non-CHD events; additionally requiring clinically defined cardiac enzyme levels or administration of MI-related medications correctly identified 55%, 42%, and 95% of such events, respectively. Requiring any one of the ICD-9/CPT or cardiac enzyme criteria correctly identified 98% of definite, 97% of probable/definite CHD, and 85% of non-CHD events. Challenges included difficulty matching hospitalization dates, incomplete diagnosis code data, and multiple field names/locations of laboratory/medication data. Computer algorithms comprising only ICD-9/CPT codes failed to identify a sizable proportion of CHD events. Using a less restrictive algorithm yielded fewer missed events but increased the false-positive rate. Despite potential benefits of EMR-based research, there remain several challenges to fully computerized adjudication of CHD events.
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.