ArticleJournal of primary care & community health
Assessing the Validity of Electronic Medical Records for Identifying High Antibiotic Prescribers in Primary Care.
Article in Journal of primary care & community health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesElectronic medical record (EMR) prescription data may identify high antibiotic prescribers in primary care. However, practitioners doubt that population differences between providers and delayed antibiotic prescriptions are adequately accounted for in EMR-derived prescription rates. This study assessed the validity of using EMR prescription data to produce antibiotic prescription rates, accounting for these factors.
methodsThe study was a secondary analysis of antimicrobial prescriptions collected from 4 primary care clinics from 2015 to 2017. For adults with selected respiratory and urinary infections, EMR diagnostic codes, prescription data, clinical diagnoses and demographics were abstracted. Overall and delayed prescription rates were produced for EMR diagnostic codes, clinical diagnoses, by clinic, and types of infection. Direct standardization was used to adjust for case mix differences by clinic. High antibiotic prescribers, above the 75th percentile for prescriptions, were compared with low antibiotic prescribers.
resultsOf 3108 EMR visits, there were 2577 (85.4%) eligible visits with a clinical diagnosis and prescription information. Overall antibiotic prescription rates were similar utilizing EMR records (31.6%) or clinical diagnoses (32.6%,
conclusionsElectronic medical record prescribing rates are similar to those using clinical diagnoses overall, but overestimate prescribing by clinicians for conditions usually not needing antibiotics. EMR prescription rates do not account for delayed antibiotic prescriptions or differences in infection case-mix.
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.