ArticleThe International journal of angiology : official publication of the International College of Angiology, Inc2024
Validity of Routinely Reported Rutherford Scores Reported by Clinicians as Part of Daily Clinical Practice.
Article in The International journal of angiology : official publication of the International College of Angiology, Inc, 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.
- Clinical value of targeted arterial infusion of ginkgo biloba extract combined with urokinase in thromboangiitis obliterans.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
- Peripheral arterial aneurysms: A prospective study of 30 cases.Biomedical reports · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Routinely reported structured data from the electronic health record (EHR) are frequently used for secondary purposes. However, it is unknown how valid routinely reported data are for reuse. This study aimed to assess the validity of routinely reported Rutherford scores by clinicians as an indicator for the validity of structured data in the EHR. This observational study compared clinician-reported Rutherford scores with medical record review Rutherford scores for all visits at the vascular surgery department between April 1, 2016 and December 31, 2018. Free-text fields with clinical information for all visits were extracted for the assignment of the medical record review Rutherford score, after which the agreement with the clinician-reported Rutherford score was assessed using Fleiss' Kappa. A total of 6,633 visits were included for medical record review. Substantial agreement was shown between clinician-reported Rutherford scores and medical record review Rutherford scores for the left (
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.