ArticleVaccine: X2023
Validating pertussis data measures using electronic medical record data in Ontario, Canada 1986-2016.
Article in Vaccine: X, 2023. 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, 3 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Pertussis is a reportable disease in many countries, but ascertainment bias has limited data accuracy. This study aims to validate pertussis data measures using a reference standard that incorporates different suspected case severities, allowing for the impact of case severity on accuracy and detection to be explored. Methods: We evaluated 25 pertussis detection algorithms in a primary care electronic medical record database between January 1, 1986 and December 30, 2016. We estimated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). We used sensitivity analyses to explore areas of uncertainty and evaluated reasons for lack of detection. Results: The algorithm including all data measures achieved the highest sensitivity at 20.6%. Sensitivity increased to 100% after reclassifying symptom-only cases as non-cases, but the PPV remained low. Age at first episode was significantly associated with detection in half of the tested scenarios, and false negatives often had some history of immunization. Conclusions: Sensitivity improved by reclassifying symptom-only cases but remained low unless multiple data sources were used. Results demonstrate a trade-off between PPV and sensitivity. EMRs can enhance detection through patient history and clinical note data. It is essential to improve case identification of older individuals with vaccination history to reduce ascertainment bias.
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.