ArticleJAMIA open2022
Comparison of algorithms for identifying people with HIV from electronic medical records in a large, multi-site database.
Article in JAMIA open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Antiretroviral utilization and adherence before vs. after expansion of a provincial drug insurance policy.AIDS (London, England) · 2026Article
- Health-related quality of life among adult cancer patients with and without HIV: Analysis of SEER-MHOS data (2007-2017).Journal of geriatric oncology · 2026Article
- Automated HIV Case Identification from the MIMIC-IV Database.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2024Article
- Predictive Modeling of Lapses in Care for People Living with HIV in Chicago: Algorithm Development and Interpretation.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: As electronic medical record (EMR) data are increasingly used in HIV clinical and epidemiologic research, accurately identifying people with HIV (PWH) from EMR data is paramount. We sought to evaluate EMR data types and compare EMR algorithms for identifying PWH in a multicenter EMR database. Materials and Methods: We collected EMR data from 7 healthcare systems in the Chicago Area Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Network (CAPriCORN) including diagnosis codes, anti-retroviral therapy (ART), and laboratory test results. Results: In total, 13 935 patients had a positive laboratory test for HIV; 33 412 patients had a diagnosis code for HIV; and 17 725 patients were on ART. Only 8576 patients had evidence of HIV-positive status for all 3 data types (laboratory results, diagnosis code, and ART). A previously validated combination algorithm identified 22 411 patients as PWH. Conclusion: EMR algorithms that combine laboratory results, administrative data, and ART can be applied to multicenter EMR data to identify PWH.
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.