ArticleBMJ open quality2024
Achieving high inter-rater reliability in establishing data labels: a retrospective chart review study.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Assessing the validity of ICD-10 administrative data in coding comorbidities.BMJ health & care informatics · 2025Article
- Utilizing large language models for detecting hospital-acquired conditions: an empirical study on pulmonary embolism.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn medical research, the effectiveness of machine learning algorithms depends heavily on the accuracy of labeled data. This study aimed to assess inter-rater reliability (IRR) in a retrospective electronic medical chart review to create high quality labeled data on comorbidities and adverse events (AEs).
methodsSix registered nurses with diverse clinical backgrounds reviewed patient charts, extracted data on 20 predefined comorbidities and 18 AEs. All reviewers underwent four iterative rounds of training aimed to enhance accuracy and foster consensus. Periodic monitoring was conducted at the beginning, middle, and end of the testing phase to ensure data quality. Weighted Kappa coefficients were calculated with their associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
resultsSeventy patient charts were reviewed. The overall agreement, measured by Conger's Kappa, was 0.80 (95% CI: 0.78-0.82). IRR scores remained consistently high (ranging from 0.70 to 0.87) throughout each phase.
conclusionOur study suggests the detailed manual for chart review and structured training regimen resulted in a consistently high level of agreement among our reviewers during the chart review process. This establishes a robust foundation for generating high-quality labeled data, thereby enhancing the potential for developing accurate machine learning algorithms.
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.