Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33779743›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2021

Development of a Machine Learning Model Using Electronic Health Record Data to Identify Antibiotic Use Among Hospitalized Patients.

Rebekah W Moehring, Matthew Phelan, Eric Lofgren, Alicia Nelson, Elizabeth Dodds Ashley, Deverick J Anderson, Benjamin A Goldstein

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. A Novel Risk-Adjusted Metric to Compare Hospitals on Their Antibiotic Prescribing at Hospital Discharge.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2024
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

7 authors.

Rebekah W MoehringDuke Center for Antimicrobial Stewardship and Infection Prevention, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Matthew PhelanDuke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina.
Eric LofgrenPaul G. Allen School for Global Animal Health, Washington State University, Pullman.
Alicia NelsonDuke Center for Antimicrobial Stewardship and Infection Prevention, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Elizabeth Dodds AshleyDuke Center for Antimicrobial Stewardship and Infection Prevention, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Deverick J AndersonDuke Center for Antimicrobial Stewardship and Infection Prevention, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Benjamin A GoldsteinDuke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Comparisons of antimicrobial use among hospitals are difficult to interpret owing to variations in patient case mix. Risk-adjustment strategies incorporating larger numbers of variables haves been proposed as a method to improve comparisons for antimicrobial stewardship assessments. Objective: To evaluate whether variables of varying complexity and feasibility of measurement, derived retrospectively from the electronic health records, accurately identify inpatient antimicrobial use. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study, using a 2-stage random forests machine learning modeling analysis of electronic health record data. Data were split into training and testing sets to measure model performance using area under the curve and absolute error. All adult and pediatric inpatient encounters from October 1, 2015, to September 30, 2017, at 2 community hospitals and 1 academic medical center in the Duke University Health System were analyzed. A total of 204 candidate variables were categorized into 4 tiers based on feasibility of measurement from the electronic health records. Main Outcomes and Measures: Antimicrobial exposure was measured at the encounter level in 2 ways: binary (ever or never) and number of days of therapy. Analyses were stratified by age (pediatric or adult), unit type, and antibiotic group. Results: The data set included 170 294 encounters and 204 candidate variables from 3 hospitals during the 3-year study period. Antimicrobial exposure occurred in 80 190 encounters (47%); 64 998 (38%) received 1 to 6 days of therapy, and 15 192 (9%) received 7 or more days of therapy. Two-stage models identified antimicrobial use with high fidelity (mean area under the curve, 0.85; mean absolute error, 1.0 days of therapy). Addition of more complex variables increased accuracy, with largest improvements occurring with inclusion of diagnosis information. Accuracy varied based on location and antibiotic group. Models underestimated the number of days of therapy of encounters with long lengths of stay. Conclusions and Relevance: Models using variables derived from electronic health records identified antimicrobial exposure accurately. Future risk-adjustment strategies incorporating encounter-level information may make comparisons of antimicrobial use more meaningful for hospital antimicrobial stewardship assessments.

Indexed as

InpatientsMachine LearningAdolescentAdultAgedAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntimicrobial StewardshipChildChild, PreschoolElectronic Health RecordsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansInfantMaleMiddle AgedAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID33779743
PMCPMC8008288

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.