ArticleApplied clinical informatics2021
Examining the Concordance in the Documented Pressure Injury Site, Stage, and Count in Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care-III.
Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2021. 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.
- An AdaBoost-based algorithm to detect hospital-acquired pressure injury in the presence of conflicting annotations.Computers in biology and medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to compare the concordance of pressure injury (PI) site, stage, and count documented in electronic health records (EHRs); explore if PI count during each patient hospitalization is consistent based on PI site or stage count in the diagnosis or chart event records; and examine if discrepancies in PI count were associated with patient characteristics.
methodsHospitalization records with the International Classification of Diseases ninth edition (ICD-9) codes, chart events from two systems (CareVue, MetaVision), and clinical notes on PI were extracted from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC)-III database. PI site and stage counts from individual hospitalization were computed. Hospitalizations with the same or different counts of site and stage according to ICD-9 codes (site and stage), CareVue (site and stage), or MetaVision (stage) charts were defined as consistent or discrepant reporting. Chi-squared, independent
resultsA total of 31,918 hospitalizations had PI data. Within hospitalizations with ICD-9-coded sites and stages, 55.9% reported different counts. Within hospitalizations with CareVue charts on PI, 99.3% reported the same count. For hospitalizations with stages based on ICD-9 codes or MetaVision chart data, only 42.9% reported the same count. Discrepancies in counts were consistently and significantly associated with variables including PI recording in clinical notes, dead/hospice at discharge, more caregivers, longer hospitalization or intensive care unit stays, and more days to first transfer. Discrepancies between ICD-9 code and chart values on the site and stage were also reported.
conclusionPatient characteristics associated with PI count discrepancies identified patients at risk of having discrepant PI counts or worse outcomes. PI documentation quality could be improved with better communication, care continuity, and integrity. Clinical research using EHRs should adopt systematic data quality analysis to inform limitations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.