ArticleBMJ open2026
Performance characteristics of an electronic medical record alert system to identify hospitalised patients with active hepatitis C virus infection: a cross-sectional analysis from two large academic centres.
Article in BMJ open, 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
objectivesDirect-acting antivirals are highly effective in curing hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection but linkage to care remains a barrier to population-wide treatment. Hospitalisation for any cause may be an opportunity to identify candidates for treatment. Here, we present the test characteristics of an electronic medical record (EMR) alert system to identify hospitalised patients with HCV infection.
designWe created two alerts based on HCV antibody and RNA values and HCV-specific International Classification of Diseases codes: an ever-alert designed to detect patients with any history of HCV infection (resolved or active) and an active-alert designed to only detect active infections. We performed manual chart review of alerted patients to determine positive predictive value (PPV). We reviewed consecutively hospitalised patients to determine sensitivity.
settingTwo affiliated academic tertiary care hospitals in Baltimore, Maryland, USA. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: PPV and sensitivity of the alerts for patients with active HCV infection.
participantsHospitalised adults (aged ≥18 years).
resultsDuring 12 weeks in 2022 and 2023, the ever-alert fired for 1218 hospitalisations. The ever-alert detected 438 active infections among 1218 alerted hospitalisations (PPV 36.0% (95% CI 33.3% to 38.7%)) compared with 415 active infections among 591 alerts (PPV 70.1% (95% CI 66.4% to 73.8%)) for the active-alert. Both alerts detected 37 of 44 active cases (sensitivity 81.4% (95% CI 70.6% to 92.1%)) among 1115 consecutively hospitalised patients. DISCUSSION: The active-alert demonstrated a higher PPV than the ever-alert with a negligible decrease in case detection and similar sensitivity for active infection.
conclusionsThe active-alert may represent an efficient method of identifying candidates for HCV linkage to care using hospital EMR data. Future directions include deploying the active-alert with a formal linkage to care team.
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.