Evidence mapPaperPMID 36730744Full record

ReviewComputers, informatics, nursing : CIN2023

Natural Language Processing of Nursing Notes: An Integrative Review.

Shazia Mitha, Jessica Schwartz, Mollie Hobensack, Kenrick Cato, Kyungmi Woo, Arlene Smaldone, Maxim Topaz

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Computers, informatics, nursing : CIN, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Shazia MithaAuthor Affiliations : Columbia University School of Nursing, New York.
Jessica Schwartz
Mollie Hobensack
Kenrick Cato
Kyungmi Woo
Arlene Smaldone
Maxim Topaz

Funding

AHRQ HHS R01 HS027742
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Natural language processing includes a variety of techniques that help to extract meaning from narrative data. In healthcare, medical natural language processing has been a growing field of study; however, little is known about its use in nursing. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL and found 689 studies, narrowed to 43 eligible studies using natural language processing in nursing notes. Data related to the study purpose, patient population, methodology, performance evaluation metrics, and quality indicators were extracted for each study. The majority (86%) of the studies were conducted from 2015 to 2021. Most of the studies (58%) used inpatient data. One of four studies used data from open-source databases. The most common standard terminologies used were the Unified Medical Language System and Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine, whereas nursing-specific standard terminologies were used only in eight studies. Full system performance metrics (eg, F score) were reported for 61% of applicable studies. The overall number of nursing natural language processing publications remains relatively small compared with the other medical literature. Future studies should evaluate and report appropriate performance metrics and use existing standard nursing terminologies to enable future scalability of the methods and findings.

Indexed as

NarrationNatural Language ProcessingDatabases, FactualHumans

Identifiers

PMID36730744
PMCPMC11499545

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.