PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 9382379

A framework for capturing clinical data sets from computerized sources.

Abstract

The pressure to improve health care and provide better care at a lower cost has generated the need for efficient capture of clinical data. Many data sets are now being defined to analyze health care. Historically, review and research organizations have simply determined what data they wanted to collect, developed forms, and then gathered the information through chart review without regard to what is already available institutionally in computerized databases. Today, much electronic patient information is available in operational data systems (for example, laboratory systems, pharmacy systems, and surgical scheduling systems) and is accessible by agencies and organizations through standards for messages, codes, and encrypted electronic mail. Such agencies and organizations should define the elements of their data sets in terms of standardized operational data, and data producers should fully adopt these code and message standards. The Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set and the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Association of State and Territorial Public Health Laboratory Directors provide examples of how this can be done.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

C J McDonald, J M Overhage, P Dexter, B Y Takesue, D M Dwyer. 1997-10-15. A framework for capturing clinical data sets from computerized sources.. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-127-8_part_2-199710151-00049

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Positive-outcome bias and other limitations in the outcome of research abstracts submitted to a scientific meeting.

CONTEXT: Studies with positive results are more likely to be published in biomedical journals than are studies with negative results. However, many studies submitted for consideration at scientific meetings are never published in full; bias in this setting is poorly studied. OBJECTIVE: To identify features associated with the fate of research abstracts submitted to a scientific meeting. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective observational cohort, with 5-year follow-up of all research submitted for consideration to the major annual 1991 US research meeting in the specialty of emergency medicine. PARTICIPANTS: All research abstracts submitted for consideration at the meeting for possible presentation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Characteristics associated with acceptance for presentation at the meeting and subsequent publication as a full manuscript. RESULTS: A total of 492 research abstracts were submitted from programs in emergency medicine and other specialties affiliated with 103 US medical schools. A total of 179 (36%) were accepted for presentation and 214 (43%) were published in 44 journals. Of the 179 abstracts accepted for presentation, 111 studies were published. Scientific quality of abstracts or prestige of the journal in which the study was eventually published did not predict either of these outcomes. The best predictors (by logistic regression) of meeting acceptance were a subjective "originality" factor (odds ratio [OR], 2.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13-3.89) and positive results (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.07-3.84), and, for publication, meeting acceptance (OR, 2.49; 95% CI, 1.49-4.35) and large sample size (OR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.23-4.31). Forty-nine percent (241) of abstracts did not report on blinding, and 24% (118) did not report on randomization. Acceptance and publication were both more likely for positive outcomes (P=.03). Funnel plots showed the classic distribution of positive-outcome ("publication") bias at each of the submission, acceptance, and publication phases. Meeting acceptance predicted publication with a sensitivity of only 51%, specificity of 71%, positive predictive value of 57%, and negative predictive value of 66%. CONCLUSIONS: Positive-outcome bias was evident when studies were submitted for consideration and was amplified in the selection of abstracts for both presentation and publication, neither of which was strongly related to study design or quality.

Abstracting and Indexing

Unpublished research from a medical specialty meeting: why investigators fail to publish.

CONTEXT: It is not known whether peer review of research abstracts submitted to scientific meetings influences subsequent attempts at publication. OBJECTIVE: To determine why research submitted to a scientific meeting is not subsequently published. We hypothesized that authors of abstracts rejected by a meeting are less likely to pursue publication than those whose abstracts are accepted, regardless of research quality. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Blinded review of abstracts submitted to a medical specialty meeting in 1991 and not published as full manuscripts within 5 years. In 1996, authors of 266 unpublished studies were asked to complete questionnaires. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Submission of a full manuscript to a journal between 1991 and 1996; failure to submit a manuscript to a journal because the investigator believed it would not be accepted for publication. RESULTS: A total of 223 (84%) of the unpublished investigators returned the questionnaire. Only 44 (20%) had submitted manuscripts to a journal. Manuscript submission was not associated with abstract quality (odds ratio [OR], 1.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-1.64), positive results (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.31-1.57), or other study characteristics. Having an abstract accepted for presentation at the meeting weakly predicted submission of a manuscript to a journal (OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 0.84-4.10). Authors of accepted abstracts were significantly less likely to believe a journal would not publish their manuscript than were authors of rejected abstracts (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.0001-0.61). CONCLUSIONS: Study characteristics do not predict attempts to publish research submitted to a scientific meeting. Investigators whose research is rejected by a meeting are pessimistic about chances for publication and may make less effort to publish.

Abstracting and Indexing