Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38644459›Full record

ArticleTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2024

Detection Algorithms for Gastrointestinal Perforation Cases in the Medical Information Database Network (MID-NET

Masatoshi Tanigawa, Mei Kohama, Kaori Hirata, Rieko Izukura, Tadashi Kandabashi, Yoko Kataoka, Naoki Nakashima, Michio Kimura, Yoshiaki Uyama, Hideto Yokoi

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Masatoshi TanigawaClinical Research Support Center, Kagawa University Hospital, 1750-1 Ikenobe, Miki-Cho, Kita-Gun, Kagawa, 761-0793, Japan. tanigawa.masatoshi.k6@kagawa-u.ac.jp.ORCID 0000-0003-2676-356X
Mei KohamaOffice of Medical Informatics and Epidemiology, Pharmaceutical and Medical Devices Agency, Shin-Kasumigaseki Building, 3-3-2 Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 100-0013, Japan.
Kaori HirataOffice of Medical Informatics and Epidemiology, Pharmaceutical and Medical Devices Agency, Shin-Kasumigaseki Building, 3-3-2 Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 100-0013, Japan.
Rieko IzukuraSocial Medicine, Department of Basic Medicine, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan.
Tadashi KandabashiMedical Information Center, Kyushu University Hospital, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan.
Yoko KataokaClinical Research Support Center, Kagawa University Hospital, 1750-1 Ikenobe, Miki-Cho, Kita-Gun, Kagawa, 761-0793, Japan.
Naoki NakashimaMedical Information Center, Kyushu University Hospital, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan.
Michio KimuraDepartment of Medical Informatics, Hamamatsu University Hospital, 1-20-1 Handayama, Higashi-ku, Hamamatsu, Shizuoka, 431-3192, Japan.
Yoshiaki UyamaOffice of Medical Informatics and Epidemiology, Pharmaceutical and Medical Devices Agency, Shin-Kasumigaseki Building, 3-3-2 Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 100-0013, Japan.
Hideto YokoiDepartment of Medical Informatics, Kagawa University Hospital, 1750-1 Ikenobe, Miki-Cho, Kita-Gun, Kagawa, 761-0793, Japan.

Funding

Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development JP19mk0101088Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare 20KC2007
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Medical Information Database Network (MID-NET

methodsThis study evaluated 12 identification algorithms by combining ICD-10 codes with GIP therapeutic procedures. Two sites contributed 200 inpatients with GIP-suggestive ICD-10 codes (100 inpatients each), while a third site contributed 165 inpatients with GIP-suggestive ICD-10 codes and antimicrobial prescriptions. The positive predictive values (PPVs) of the algorithms were determined, and the relative sensitivity (rSn) among the 165 inpatients at the third institution was evaluated.

resultsA trade-off between PPV and rSn was observed. For instance, ICD-10 code-based definitions yielded PPVs of 59.5%, whereas ICD-10 codes with CT scan and antimicrobial information gave PPVs of 56.0% and an rSn of 97.0%, and ICD-10 codes with CT scan and antimicrobial information as well as three types of operation codes produced PPVs of 84.2% and an rSn of 24.2%. The same algorithms produced statistically significant differences in PPVs among the three institutions. Combining diagnostic and procedure codes improved the PPVs. The algorithm combining ICD-10 codes with CT scan and antimicrobial information and 80 different operation codes offered the optimal balance (PPV: 61.6%, rSn: 92.4%).

conclusionThis study developed valuable GIP identification algorithms for MID-NET

Indexed as

AlgorithmsDatabases, FactualIntestinal PerforationPharmacovigilanceAdultAdverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansInternational Classification of DiseasesJapanMaleMiddle AgedGastrointestinal perforationICD-10Identification algorithmMedical information databasePharmacovigilancePositive predictive value

Identifiers

PMID38644459

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.