ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2023
Outliers in diagnosis ratios: A clue toward possibly absent data.
Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 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.
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.
Funding
Abstract
The evaluation of completeness of real-world data is a particularly challenging component of data quality assessment because the degree of truly versus erroneously absent data is unknown. Among inpatient data sets, while absolute counts of admissions having specific categories of diagnoses in the principal or any position may vary depending on hospital size, we hypothesized that the ratio of these parameters will be preserved across sites, with outliers suggesting the potential for erroneously absent data. For several categories of clinical conditions assigned to inpatient admissions, we analyzed the ratio of their recording as the principal diagnosis versus any diagnosis across several hospitals and compared the ratios against a national benchmark. Our analysis showed ratios that matched clinical expectations, with reasonable preservation of ratios across sites. However, some conditions exhibited more variability in the ratios and some sites had many outliers possibly reflecting data quality issues that warrant further attention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38222346PMC10785923What 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.