Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33164082›Full record

SynthesisJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2021

Informative presence and observation in routine health data: A review of methodology for clinical risk prediction.

Rose Sisk, Lijing Lin, Matthew Sperrin, Jessica K Barrett, Brian Tom, Karla Diaz-Ordaz, Niels Peek, Glen P Martin

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing 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

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Enhancing Clinical Decision Support in Nephrology: Addressing Algorithmic Bias Through Artificial Intelligence Governance.American journal of kidney diseases : the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation · 2024
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors.

Rose SiskDivision of Informatics, Imaging and Data Sciences, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Lijing LinDivision of Informatics, Imaging and Data Sciences, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Matthew SperrinDivision of Informatics, Imaging and Data Sciences, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Jessica K BarrettMRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Brian TomMRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Karla Diaz-OrdazDepartment of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Niels PeekDivision of Informatics, Imaging and Data Sciences, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Glen P MartinDivision of Informatics, Imaging and Data Sciences, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_00002/2Medical Research Council MC_UU_00002/5Medical Research Council MR/N013751/11
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveInformative presence (IP) is the phenomenon whereby the presence or absence of patient data is potentially informative with respect to their health condition, with informative observation (IO) being the longitudinal equivalent. These phenomena predominantly exist within routinely collected healthcare data, in which data collection is driven by the clinical requirements of patients and clinicians. The extent to which IP and IO are considered when using such data to develop clinical prediction models (CPMs) is unknown, as is the existing methodology aiming at handling these issues. This review aims to synthesize such existing methodology, thereby helping identify an agenda for future methodological work. MATERIALS AND

methodsA systematic literature search was conducted by 2 independent reviewers using prespecified keywords.

resultsThirty-six articles were included. We categorized the methods presented within as derived predictors (including some representation of the measurement process as a predictor in the model), modeling under IP, and latent structures. Including missing indicators or summary measures as predictors is the most commonly presented approach amongst the included studies (24 of 36 articles). DISCUSSION: This is the first review to collate the literature in this area under a prediction framework. A considerable body relevant of literature exists, and we present ways in which the described methods could be developed further. Guidance is required for specifying the conditions under which each method should be used to enable applied prediction modelers to use these methods.

conclusionsA growing recognition of IP and IO exists within the literature, and methodology is increasingly becoming available to leverage these phenomena for prediction purposes. IP and IO should be approached differently in a prediction context than when the primary goal is explanation. The work included in this review has demonstrated theoretical and empirical benefits of incorporating IP and IO, and therefore we recommend that applied health researchers consider incorporating these methods in their work.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalClinical Decision-MakingElectronic Health RecordsHumansPrognosisResearch DesignUncertaintyclinical prediction modelelectronic health recordsinformative observationinformative presence

Identifiers

PMID33164082
PMCPMC7810439

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.