Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31497615›Full record

ArticleEGEMS (Washington, DC)2019

Extracting Patient-Centered Outcomes from Clinical Notes in Electronic Health Records: Assessment of Urinary Incontinence After Radical Prostatectomy.

Davide Gori, Imon Banerjee, Benjamin I Chung, Michelle Ferrari, Paola Rucci, Douglas W Blayney, James D Brooks, Tina Hernandez-Boussard

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EGEMS (Washington, DC), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Leveraging Digital Data to Inform and Improve Quality Cancer Care.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2020
    Article
  7. 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

8 authors.

Davide GoriUniversity of Bologna, IT.
Imon BanerjeeStanford University, US.
Benjamin I ChungStanford University, US.
Michelle FerrariStanford University, US.
Paola RucciUniversity of Bologna, IT.
Douglas W BlayneyStanford University, US.
James D BrooksStanford University, US.
Tina Hernandez-BoussardStanford University, US.

Funding

Utilizing Electronic Health Records to Measure and Improve Prostate Cancer CareR01CA183962 · NCI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI HERNANDEZ-BOUSSARD, TINA · 2015 to 2019
$3.1M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA183962
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess documentation of urinary incontinence (UI) in prostatectomy patients using unstructured clinical notes from Electronic Health Records (EHRs).

methodsWe developed a weakly-supervised natural language processing tool to extract assessments, as recorded in unstructured text notes, of UI before and after radical prostatectomy in a single academic practice across multiple clinicians. Validation was carried out using a subset of patients who completed EPIC-26 surveys before and after surgery. The prevalence of UI as assessed by EHR and EPIC-26 was compared using repeated-measures ANOVA. The agreement of reported UI between EHR and EPIC-26 was evaluated using Cohen's Kappa coefficient.

resultsA total of 4870 patients and 716 surveys were included. Preoperative prevalence of UI was 12.7 percent. Postoperative prevalence was 71.8 percent at 3 months, 50.2 percent at 6 months and 34.4 and 41.8 at 12 and 24 months, respectively. Similar rates were recorded by physicians in the EHR, particularly for early follow-up. For all time points, the agreement between EPIC-26 and the EHR was moderate (all p < 0.001) and ranged from 86.7 percent agreement at baseline (Kappa = 0.48) to 76.4 percent agreement at 24 months postoperative (Kappa = 0.047).

conclusionsWe have developed a tool to assess documentation of UI after prostatectomy using EHR clinical notes. Our results suggest such a tool can facilitate unbiased measurement of important PCOs using real-word data, which are routinely recorded in EHR unstructured clinician notes. Integrating PCO information into clinical decision support can help guide shared treatment decisions and promote patient-valued care.

Indexed as

electronic health recordspatient-reported outcomespatient surveysurinary incontinence

Identifiers

PMID31497615
PMCPMC6706996

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.