ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2020
Developing and Validating a Model for Detecting Longitudinal Inconsistencies in the Electronic Problem List.
Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Current state of electronic problems lists in primary care: a rapid scoping review.Family practice · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinicians from different care settings can distort the problem list from conveying a patient's actual health status, affecting quality and patient safety. To measure this effect, a reference standard was built to derive a problem-list based model. Real-world problem lists were used to derive an ideal categorization cutoff score. The model was tested against patient records to categorize problem lists as either having longitudinal inconsistencies or not. The model was able to successfully categorize these events with ~87% accuracy, ~83% sensitivity, and ~89% specificity. This new model can be used to quantify intervention effects, can be reported in problem list studies, and can be used to measure problem list changes based on policy, workflow, or system changes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33936430PMC8075429What 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.