ArticleAMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science2020
Natural Language Processing for the Evaluation of Methodological Standards and Best Practices of EHR-based Clinical Research.
Article in AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recommended practices and ethical considerations for natural language processing-assisted observational research: A scoping review.Clinical and translational science · 2023Article
- Scabies incidence and association with skin and soft tissue infection in Loyalty Islands Province, New Caledonia: A 15-year retrospective observational study using electronic health records.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2022Observational
- Quality assessment of functional status documentation in EHRs across different healthcare institutions.Frontiers in digital health · 2022Article
- Clinical concept extraction: A methodology review.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2020Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The effective use of EHR data for clinical research is challenged by the lack of methodologic standards, transparency, and reproducibility. For example, our empirical analysis on clinical research ontologies and reporting standards found little-to-no informatics-related standards. To address these issues, our study aims to leverage natural language processing techniques to discover the reporting patterns and data abstraction methodologies for EHR-based clinical research. We conducted a case study using a collection of full articles of EHR-based population studies published using the Rochester Epidemiology Project infrastructure. Our investigation discovered an upward trend of reporting EHR-related research methodologies, good practice, and the use of informatics related methods. For example, among 1279 articles, 24.0% reported training for data abstraction, 6% reported the abstractors were blinded, 4.5% tested the inter-observer agreement, 5% reported the use of a screening/data collection protocol, 1.5% reported that team meetings were organized for consensus building, and 0.8% mentioned supervision activities by senior researchers. Despite that, the overall ratio of reporting/adoption of methodologic standards was still low. There was also a high variation regarding clinical research reporting. Thus, continuously developing process frameworks, ontologies, and reporting guidelines for promoting good data practice in EHR-based clinical research are recommended.
Identifiers
32477636PMC7233049What 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.