Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32663124›Full record

ArticleThe Permanente journal2020

On the Use of Sampling Weights for Retrospective Medical Record Reviews.

Ernest Shen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Permanente journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. 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

1 author.

Ernest ShenKaiser Permanente Department of Research and Evaluation, Pasadena, CA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Retrospective medical record review is often used to answer the "why" questions that statistical modeling cannot. In addition to its utility as an explanatory tool, it can be used to generate hypotheses using available retrospective data and so is a convenient guide for developing future prospective studies. A recent review of articles that used the retrospective medical record review method listed 10 best practices that ought to be followed. However, an issue that is not listed is the use of sampling weights, which are important when one can only conduct retrospective medical record review for a sample of the target population. Although that review acknowledged the importance of carefully selecting a sampling strategy for such a scenario and indeed had outlined 3 commonly used sampling methods (convenience, simple random, and systematic), the authors say nothing of the use of sampling information at the data analysis stage. This article aims to fill that gap and to demonstrate why the use of sample weights ought to be another best practice to add to the list by reviewing well-known theoretical details and some published data analysis examples.

Indexed as

Medical RecordsRetrospective StudiesHumansMedical AuditResearch DesignSampling Studies

Identifiers

PMID32663124
PMCPMC7357998

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.