ArticleIn vivo (Athens, Greece)
Development and Validation of an EHR-based Algorithm for Identifying
Article in In vivo (Athens, Greece). 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
BACKGROUND/
aimPATIENTS AND
methodsThis retrospective, single-center validation study used EHR data from a Japanese university hospital between April 2022 and March 2024. Adult patients (≧20 years) who were assigned an ICD-10 code for PCP were extracted, and true cases were confirmed by a detailed review of the patient records. Seven candidate algorithms combining diagnostic codes, therapeutic-dose anti-PCP prescriptions, laboratory testing, chemotherapy exposure, and prescription duration were evaluated. The positive predictive value (PPV) and capture rate were then calculated using chart-confirmed PCP as the reference standard.
resultsAmong 617 ICD-coded patients, 11 (1.8%) were confirmed as true PCP cases. The PPV of diagnostic codes alone was 1.8%. A prescription-enhanced algorithm (A1) identified 12 patients, including 11 true cases (PPV=91.7%; capture rate 100%). Algorithms incorporating β-D-glucan or PCR testing achieved PPVs of 100% with lower capture rates (63.6-81.8%). Incorporation of concurrent chemotherapy also resulted in a PPV of 100% with reduced capture. An algorithm requiring therapeutic-dose prescription for ≥21 days showed equivalent performance to A1.
conclusionPrescription-based algorithms substantially improve the accuracy of PCP case identification in EHR data compared with diagnostic codes alone. This straightforward, scalable approach offers a robust framework for real-world oncology research, enabling a more reliable evaluation of PCP incidence and informing future prophylaxis strategies for patients receiving anticancer treatment.
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.