ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Identifying Military Service Status in Electronic Healthcare Records from Psychiatric Secondary Healthcare Services: A Validation Exercise Using the Military Service Identification Tool.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Electronic healthcare records (EHRs) are a rich source of information with a range of uses in secondary research. In the United Kingdom, there is no pan-national or nationally accepted marker indicating veteran status across all healthcare services. This presents significant obstacles to determining the healthcare needs of veterans using EHRs. To address this issue, we developed the Military Service Identification Tool (MSIT), using an iterative two-staged approach. In the first stage, a Structured Query Language approach was developed to identify veterans using a keyword rule-based approach. This informed the second stage, which was the development of the MSIT using machine learning, which, when tested, obtained an accuracy of 0.97, a positive predictive value of 0.90, a sensitivity of 0.91, and a negative predictive value of 0.98. To further validate the performance of the MSIT, the present study sought to verify the accuracy of the EHRs that trained the MSIT models. To achieve this, we surveyed 902 patients of a local specialist mental healthcare service, with 146 (16.2%) being asked if they had or had not served in the Armed Forces. In total 112 (76.7%) reported that they had not served, and 34 (23.3%) reported that they had served in the Armed Forces (accuracy: 0.84, sensitivity: 0.82, specificity: 0.91). The MSIT has the potential to be used for identifying veterans in the UK from free-text clinical documents and future use should be explored.
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.