ArticleCanadian respiratory journal2020
Electronic Medical Record Inaccuracies: Multicenter Analysis of Challenges with Modified Lung Cancer Screening Criteria.
Article in Canadian respiratory journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- The prevalence of comorbidity in the lung cancer screening population: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of medical screening · 2023Pooled it
- Critical commentary on the association between thiazolidinedione use and dementia risk in patients with type 2 diabetes.Journal of diabetes · 2023Article
- Complex and Potentially Harmful Medication Patterns in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction.The American journal of medicine · 2021Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The National Comprehensive Cancer Network expanded their lung cancer screening (LCS) criteria to comprise one additional clinical risk factor, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The electronic medical record (EMR) is a source of clinical information that could identify high-risk populations for LCS, including a diagnosis of COPD; however, an unsubstantiated COPD diagnosis in the EMR may lead to inappropriate LCS referrals. We aimed to detect the prevalence of unsubstantiated COPD diagnosis in the EMR for LCS referrals, to determine the efficacy of utilizing the EMR as an accurate population-based eligibility screening "trigger" using modified clinical criteria. We performed a multicenter review of all individuals referred to three LCS programs from 2012 to 2015. Each individual's EMR was searched for COPD diagnostic terms and the presence of a diagnostic pulmonary functionality test (PFT). An unsubstantiated COPD diagnosis was defined by an individual's EMR containing a COPD term with no PFTs present, or the presence of PFTs without evidence of obstruction. A total of 2834 referred individuals were identified, of which 30% (840/2834) had a COPD term present in their EMR. Of these, 68% (571/840) were considered unsubstantiated diagnoses: 86% (489/571) due to absent PFTs and 14% (82/571) due to PFTs demonstrating no evidence of postbronchodilation obstruction. A large proportion of individuals referred for LCS may have an unsubstantiated COPD diagnosis within their EMR. Thus, utilizing the EMR as a population-based eligibility screening tool, employing expanded criteria, may lead to individuals being referred, potentially, inappropriately for LCS.
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.