ArticleBMC research notes2020
Program for data extraction in primary health records: a valid tool for knowledge production in general practice?
Article in BMC research notes, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05580549 (Prevalence of Hazardous Alcohol Use in a Population With Hypertension in Primary Care Detected With PEth and AUDIT - Observational Cross-sectional Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 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.
Prevalence of Hazardous Alcohol Use in a Population With Hypertension in Primary Care Detected With PEth and AUDIT - Observational Cross-sectional Study
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of a multimodal intervention in primary care to reduce second line antibiotic prescriptions for urinary tract infections in women: parallel, cluster randomised, controlled trial.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2023Trial
- Enhancing Alzheimer's disease diagnosis in primary care through targeted screening of people at risk of developing dementia - study design and feasibility assessment of the PREDEM primary care study.Alzheimer's research & therapy · 2026Article
- Hypertension and alcohol: a cross-sectional study comparing PEth with AUDIT and AUDIT-C in primary care.Family practice · 2025Observational
- General practitioners' experiences of being involved in local public health work in Norway. A qualitative study.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2022Article
- Antibiotic Prescription Rates After eVisits Versus Office Visits in Primary Care: Observational Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2021Article
- Comparing the Documentation of Phosphatidylethanol and Alcohol History in Hypertension Management in Primary Care: A Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesResearch in general practice demands it-tools which give the practitioner trusty results. Medrave 4 is a program designed for extraction of data from all areas of the health record. We wanted to do research on the database in a health center, but found no proof of the quality of the data extracted by Medrave 4. Today the database contains about 40,000 records. In this study we wanted to examine if the program could extract correct data.
resultsFrom the database 20 records were randomly selected from five different time periods, making a total of 100 records. 14 records did not meet the inclusion criteria, resulting in 86 records included in the study. In phase one these variables were registered manually from the records: Age, gender, systolic and diastolic blood pressure (from free text) and six different laboratory tests. In phase two, Medrave 4 extracted the same variables from the same records. Medrave 4 found correct systolic and diastolic blood pressure values in 79 records (92%). The laboratory results were extracted correct in all 86 records (100%). We conclude that Medrave 4 can be a useful tool in quantifying the work of general practitioners.
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.