ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2020
Clinical Ontologies Improve Case Finding of Primary Biliary Cholangitis in UK Primary and Secondary Care.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Algorithmic approach to finding people with multiple sclerosis using routine healthcare data in Wales.Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry · 2024Article
- A Snapshot of Digital Transformation in Hepatology and Rare Liver Disease Related Health Care: A UK Perspective.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPBC registries in the UK focus on data from secondary care without clear coordinated contribution from primary care. The Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) receives data from > 500 primary care practices (PCPs). Notably, the Lancet commissioning group is extracting data from the RCGP RSC database to shape UK policy on liver disease.
aimsTo create a novel ontology to facilitate PBC case finding from primary care provider (PCP) records.
methodsRCGP RSC data were collected from participating PCPs in the county of Surrey, UK. PBC diagnostic criteria of the AASLD and EASL guidelines were used to develop 725 data codes to facilitate patient record searches. A scoring system built into the ontology allowed categorization of cases as PBC definite, PBC probable, and PBC unlikely.
resultsA total of 218,099 records were searched from participating PCPs. Of these, there were 58 PBC definite, 2317 PBC probable, and 215,724 PBC unlikely patients. There were 32 PBC definite patients who did not match to our regional PBC database and were henceforth included as new-found cases. Two of these cases were not labeled as PBC by the PCP. From the PBC unlikely group, 7/215,724 (0.003%) patients were labeled as PBC in secondary care records; however, none of them were coded as having PBC by their PCPs.
conclusionsUtilization of the UK National RCGP RSC database supported by novel ontology score has successfully helped us identify (i) new cases of PBC not known to local/regional secondary care providers and (ii) de novo PBC cases. There are many PBC probable cases whose data merit further careful evaluation.
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.