Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34150426›Full record

ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2021

ChartSweep: A HIPAA-compliant Tool to Automate Chart Review for Plastic Surgery Research.

Christian Chartier, Lisa Gfrerer, William G Austen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Semi-supervised ROC analysis for reliable and streamlined evaluation of phenotyping algorithms.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024
    Article
  6. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Christian ChartierDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass.
Lisa GfrererDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass.
William G AustenDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass.
Creative Commons · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Retrospective chart review (RCR) is the process of manual patient data review to answer research questions. Large and heterogeneous datasets make the RCR process time-consuming, with potential to introduce errors. The authors therefore designed and developed ChartSweep to expedite the RCR process while remaining faithful to its methodological rigor. ChartSweep is an open-source tool that can be customized for use with any electronic health record system. ChartSweep was developed by the authors to extract information from electronic health records using the Python coding language. As proof-of-concept, the tool was tested in three studies: RCR1-Identification of subjects who underwent radiofrequency ablation in a cohort of patients who had undergone headache surgery (n = 172); RCR2-Identification of patients with a diagnosis of thoracic outlet syndrome in patients who underwent peripheral neuroplasty (n = 806); RCR3-Identification of patients with a history of implant illness or breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma in patients who had undergone implant-based breast augmentation or reconstruction (n = 1133). Inter-rater reliability was assessed. ChartSweep reduced the time required to conduct RCR1 by 1315 minutes (21.9 hours), RCR2 by 1664 minutes (27.7 hours), and RCR3 by 2215 minutes (36.9 hours). Inter-rater reliability was uncompromised (k = 1.00). Open-source Python libraries as leveraged by ChartSweep significantly accelerate the RCR process in plastic surgery research. Quality of data review is not compromised. Further analyses with larger, heterogeneous study populations are required to further validate ChartSweep as a research tool.

Identifiers

PMID34150426
PMCPMC8205215
OpenAlexW3171539056

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.