Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33862230›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2021

Critical carE Database for Advanced Research (CEDAR): An automated method to support intensive care units with electronic health record data.

Edward J Schenck, Katherine L Hoffman, Marika Cusick, Joseph Kabariti, Evan T Sholle, Thomas R Campion

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. SOFA in sepsis: with or without GCS.European journal of medical research · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  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

6 authors.

Edward J SchenckWeill Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, United States.
Katherine L HoffmanDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, United States.
Marika CusickInformation Technologies & Services Department, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, United States.
Joseph KabaritiInformation Technologies & Services Department, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, United States.
Evan T SholleInformation Technologies & Services Department, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, United States.
Thomas R CampionDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, United States; Information Technologies & Services Department, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, United States; Department of Pediatrics, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, United States; Clinical & Translational Science Center, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, United States.

Funding

Disparities in COVID Disease Severity and Outcomes in New York CityUL1TR002384 · NCATS · WEILL MEDICAL COLL OF CORNELL UNIV · PI JULIANNE L IMPERATO-MCGINLEY · 2017 to 2026
$86.2M
Clinical and Translational Science CenterUL1TR000457 · NCATS · WEILL MEDICAL COLL OF CORNELL UNIV · PI IMPERATO-MCGINLEY, JULIANNE L · 2012 to 2016
$46.0M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000457NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002384
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patients treated in an intensive care unit (ICU) are critically ill and require life-sustaining organ failure support. Existing critical care data resources are limited to a select number of institutions, contain only ICU data, and do not enable the study of local changes in care patterns. To address these limitations, we developed the Critical carE Database for Advanced Research (CEDAR), a method for automating extraction and transformation of data from an electronic health record (EHR) system. Compared to an existing gold standard of manually collected data at our institution, CEDAR was statistically similar in most measures, including patient demographics and sepsis-related organ failure assessment (SOFA) scores. Additionally, CEDAR automated data extraction obviated the need for manual collection of 550 variables. Critically, during the spring 2020 COVID-19 surge in New York City, a modified version of CEDAR supported pandemic response efforts, including clinical operations and research. Other academic medical centers may find value in using the CEDAR method to automate data extraction from EHR systems to support ICU activities.

Indexed as

COVID-19Databases, FactualElectronic Health RecordsIntensive Care UnitsAgedAged, 80 and overCritical CareCritical IllnessFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNew York CityCOVID-19Intensive care unitSecondary use of electronic health record data

Identifiers

PMID33862230
PMCPMC8187305

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.