OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate time-efficient automated electronic search strategies for identifying preoperative risk factors for postoperative acute lung injury. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study included 249 patients undergoing high-risk surgery between November 1, 2005, and August 31, 2006. Two independent data-extraction strategies were compared. The first strategy used a manual review of medical records and the second a Web-based query-building tool. Web-based searches were derived and refined in a derivation cohort of 83 patients and subsequently validated in an independent cohort of 166 patients. Agreement between the 2 search strategies was assessed with percent agreement and Cohen κ statistics. RESULTS: Cohen κ statistics ranged from 0.34 (95% confidence interval, 0.00-0.86) for amiodarone to 0.85 for cirrhosis (95% confidence interval, 0.57-1.00). Agreement between manual and automated electronic data extraction was almost complete for 3 variables (diabetes mellitus, cirrhosis, H(2)-receptor antagonists), substantial for 3 (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, proton pump inhibitors, statins), moderate for gastroesophageal reflux disease, and fair for 2 variables (restrictive lung disease and amiodarone). Automated electronic queries outperformed manual data collection in terms of sensitivities (median, 100% [range, 77%-100%] vs median, 87% [range, 0%-100%]). The specificities were uniformly high (≥ 96%) for both search strategies. CONCLUSION: Automated electronic query building is an iterative process that ultimately results in accurate, highly efficient data extraction. These strategies may be useful for both clinicians and researchers when determining the risk of time-sensitive conditions such as postoperative acute lung injury.
OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate time-efficient automated electronic search strategies for identifying preoperative risk factors for postoperative acute lung injury. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study included 249 patients undergoing high-risk surgery between November 1, 2005, and August 31, 2006. Two independent data-extraction strategies were compared. The first strategy used a manual review of medical records and the second a Web-based query-building tool. Web-based searches were derived and refined in a derivation cohort of 83 patients and subsequently validated in an independent cohort of 166 patients. Agreement between the 2 search strategies was assessed with percent agreement and Cohen κ statistics. RESULTS: Cohen κ statistics ranged from 0.34 (95% confidence interval, 0.00-0.86) for amiodarone to 0.85 for cirrhosis (95% confidence interval, 0.57-1.00). Agreement between manual and automated electronic data extraction was almost complete for 3 variables (diabetes mellitus, cirrhosis, H(2)-receptor antagonists), substantial for 3 (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, proton pump inhibitors, statins), moderate for gastroesophageal reflux disease, and fair for 2 variables (restrictive lung disease and amiodarone). Automated electronic queries outperformed manual data collection in terms of sensitivities (median, 100% [range, 77%-100%] vs median, 87% [range, 0%-100%]). The specificities were uniformly high (≥ 96%) for both search strategies. CONCLUSION: Automated electronic query building is an iterative process that ultimately results in accurate, highly efficient data extraction. These strategies may be useful for both clinicians and researchers when determining the risk of time-sensitive conditions such as postoperative acute lung injury.
Authors: E P McCarthy; L I Iezzoni; R B Davis; R H Palmer; M Cahalane; M B Hamel; K Mukamal; R S Phillips; D T Davies Journal: Med Care Date: 2000-08 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: E Rivers; B Nguyen; S Havstad; J Ressler; A Muzzin; B Knoblich; E Peterson; M Tomlanovich Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-11-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: C Trillo-Alvarez; R Cartin-Ceba; D J Kor; M Kojicic; R Kashyap; S Thakur; L Thakur; V Herasevich; M Malinchoc; O Gajic Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2010-06-18 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: E Ruffini; A Parola; E Papalia; P L Filosso; M Mancuso; A Oliaro; G Actis-Dato; G Maggi Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2001-07 Impact factor: 4.191
Authors: M Moss; D M Guidot; K P Steinberg; G F Duhon; P Treece; R Wolken; L D Hudson; P E Parsons Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Balwinder Singh; Michelle M Mielke; Ajay K Parsaik; Ruth H Cha; Rosebud O Roberts; Paul D Scanlon; Yonas E Geda; Teresa J Christianson; V Shane Pankratz; Ronald C Petersen Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Mahmoud A Amr; Mohammad J Alzghari; Stephanie F Polites; Mohammad A Khasawneh; David S Morris; Todd H Baron; Martin D Zielinski Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2014-08-14 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: N J Smischney; V M Velagapudi; J A Onigkeit; B W Pickering; V Herasevich; R Kashyap Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2013-09-04 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Niyada Naksuk; Alan M Sugrue; Deepak Padmanabhan; Danesh Kella; Christopher V DeSimone; Suraj Kapa; Samuel J Asirvatham; Hon-Chi Lee; Michael J Ackerman; Peter A Noseworthy Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2018-10-23 Impact factor: 1.900