ArticleChest2026
The Consistency of Hypercapnic Respiratory Failure Case Definitions in Electronic Health Record Data.
Article in Chest, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSeveral studies suggest a high prevalence and disease burden associated with hypercapnic respiratory failure of any cause in emergency department (ED) and inpatient settings. However, these studies use different case definitions. The consistency and validity of these case definitions have not been assessed. RESEARCH QUESTIONS: Do the various case definitions from health record-based studies of adults with hypercapnic respiratory failure identify the same, or similar, patients?
methodsWe identified case definitions for hypercapnic respiratory failure from the peer-reviewed literature. We constructed an emulation data set enriched for the presence of hypercapnic respiratory failure from TriNetX (TriNetX, LLC), which aggregates health records from 76 hospitals in the United States. Adult ED and inpatient encounters occurring in 2022 were eligible for inclusion. We assessed consistency among case definitions by applying them to the emulation data set on the day of ED or hospital admission. We calculated Cohen's κ value and compared the patient characteristics and short-term outcomes for the cohorts defined by each case definition. We evaluated the accuracy of hypercapnic respiratory failure diagnosis codes for capturing hypercapnia demonstrated on first-day arterial blood gas samples.
resultsTen case definitions for hypercapnic respiratory failure were identified and were amenable to emulation. The emulation data set contained 515,286 encounters. Case definitions showed limited agreement (median κ = 0.35; interquartile range, 0.21-0.56) for hypercapnic respiratory failure identification. Key demographic characteristics, comorbidities, and outcomes such as receiving ventilatory support (range, 29%-100%) and 60-day mortality (range, 12%-28%) varied substantially among the resulting cohorts. Diagnosis codes were insensitive for capturing first-day arterial blood gas-demonstrated hypercapnia (sensitivity, 23.5%; 95% CI, 23.1%-23.8%).
interpretationCase definitions from studies of hypercapnic respiratory failure identify patients with widely different attributes and outcomes, thereby hampering interpretation of associated study findings. Standardization of case definitions is necessary to improve the rigor and generalizability of research on hypercapnic respiratory failure.
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.