ArticlePaediatric anaesthesia2024
A pragmatic methodology to extract anesthetic and physiological data from the electronic health record.
Article in Paediatric anaesthesia, 2024. 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.
- Adoption and Efficiency of an Anesthesia Information Management System: Evaluation of Workflow Integration in Perioperative Care.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
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
BACKGROUND/
aimsTraditional manual methods of extracting anesthetic and physiological data from the electronic health record rely upon visual transcription by a human analyst that can be labor-intensive and prone to error. Technical complexity, relative inexperience in computer coding, and decreased access to data warehouses can deter investigators from obtaining valuable electronic health record data for research studies, especially in under-resourced settings. We therefore aimed to develop, pilot, and demonstrate the effectiveness and utility of a pragmatic data extraction methodology.
methodsExpired sevoflurane concentration data from the electronic health record transcribed by eye was compared to an intermediate preprocessing method in which the entire anesthetic flowsheet narrative report was selected, copy-pasted, and processed using only Microsoft Word and Excel software to generate a comma-delimited (.csv) file. A step-by-step presentation of this method is presented. Concordance rates, Pearson correlation coefficients, and scatterplots with lines of best fit were used to compare the two methods of data extraction.
resultsA total of 1132 datapoints across eight subjects were analyzed, accounting for 18.9 h of anesthesia time. There was a high concordance rate of data extracted using the two methods (median concordance rate 100% range [96%, 100%]). The median time required to complete manual data extraction was significantly longer compared to the time required using the intermediate method (240 IQR [199, 482.5] seconds vs 92.5 IQR [69, 99] seconds, p = .01) and was linearly associated with the number of datapoints (r
conclusionsWe describe a pragmatic data extraction methodology that does not require additional software or coding skills intended to enhance the ease, speed, and accuracy of data collection that could assist in clinician investigator-initiated research and quality/process improvement projects.
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.