ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2023
Developing electronic clinical quality measures to assess the cancer diagnostic process.
Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital quality measure of potentially avoidable emergency presentations among patients with colorectal cancer.BMJ quality & safety · 2026Article
- Delayed Venous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Mortality Risk.JAMA network open · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveMeasures of diagnostic performance in cancer are underdeveloped. Electronic clinical quality measures (eCQMs) to assess quality of cancer diagnosis could help quantify and improve diagnostic performance. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe developed 2 eCQMs to assess diagnostic evaluation of red-flag clinical findings for colorectal (CRC; based on abnormal stool-based cancer screening tests or labs suggestive of iron deficiency anemia) and lung (abnormal chest imaging) cancer. The 2 eCQMs quantified rates of red-flag follow-up in CRC and lung cancer using electronic health record data repositories at 2 large healthcare systems. Each measure used clinical data to identify abnormal results, evidence of appropriate follow-up, and exclusions that signified follow-up was unnecessary. Clinicians reviewed 100 positive and 20 negative randomly selected records for each eCQM at each site to validate accuracy and categorized missed opportunities related to system, provider, or patient factors.
resultsWe implemented the CRC eCQM at both sites, while the lung cancer eCQM was only implemented at the VA due to lack of structured data indicating level of cancer suspicion on most chest imaging results at Geisinger. For the CRC eCQM, the rate of appropriate follow-up was 36.0% (26 746/74 314 patients) in the VA after removing clinical exclusions and 41.1% at Geisinger (1009/2461 patients; P < .001). Similarly, the rate of appropriate evaluation for lung cancer in the VA was 61.5% (25 166/40 924 patients). Reviewers most frequently attributed missed opportunities at both sites to provider factors (84 of 157).
conclusionsWe implemented 2 eCQMs to evaluate the diagnostic process in cancer at 2 large health systems. Health care organizations can use these eCQMs to monitor diagnostic performance related to cancer.
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.