ArticlePrimary health care research & development2026
The identification of primary care consultation visits for otitis media: development of a software algorithm screening tool.
Article in Primary health care research & development, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIdentifying diagnoses from noncoded healthcare visit records presents logistical challenges when large number of records are screened. This study aimed to develop a screening process to identify otitis media (OM) diagnoses in free-text primary care visit records.
methodsThe free-text primary care records of 200 children aged 0 to 4 years were reviewed independently by three clinicians to determine whether OM was a diagnosis considered during each visit. Terms (abbreviations, words, and phrases) identifying visits where OM was considered or excluded were documented. These terms were used to design a software algorithm subsequently used to detect OM diagnosis within these primary care records. The diagnostic performance of the software algorithm was determined against the gold standard clinicians' review and described using sensitivity, specificity, predictive values (PVs), and likelihood ratios (LRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
resultsThe 200 children had 10,034 primary care visits. Clinician review identified 917 (9%) visits where OM was considered, and 9117 (91%) visits where OM was excluded. The software algorithm identified 801/917 visits where OM was considered and 8705/9117 visits where OM was excluded. The algorithm sensitivity was 87% (95% CI 85-89), specificity 96% (95% CI 95-96), positive PV 66% (95% CI 63-69), negative PV 99% (95% CI 98-99), positive LR 19.33 (95% CI 17.54-21.31), and negative LR 0.13 (95% CI 0.11-0.16).
conclusionSoftware algorithms can assist in screening healthcare visit records. When combined with clinician review, they enable accurate identification of OM visits from non-coded records.
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.