ArticleData in brief2023
A dataset examining the impact of direct electronic medical record interfacing on the accuracy of point-of-care urinalysis results.
Article in Data in brief, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Point-of-care testing is widely used in a variety of clinical settings. While this testing provides immediate and actionable clinical information, it is prone to error in both the interpretation and reporting of results. Point-of-care urinalysis presents unique opportunities for errors, ranging from variation in visual interpretation to input of results. The data included here represent the results from 63,279 urinalyses from 36,780 unique patients performed over a span of three years at an academic medical center and its associated clinics. The data include the patient age/legal sex, methodology (instrument and test strip used), and the available test results (color, clarity, glucose, bilirubin, ketones, specific gravity, blood, pH, protein, urobilinogen, nitrite, and leukocyte esterase). Additionally, we include the method of interface between the testing instrumentation and our electronic medical record (EMR). These fell into one of three broad categories: "Interfaced" (results directly transmitted from the urinalysis instrument to the EMR via specialized data interface), "Manual" (results input by selecting from a drop-down menu in the laboratory information system), and "Enter/Edit" (results typed freely into a text field in the EMR). Analysis of this data was primarily a direct comparison of detectable errors (typos, uninterpretable results, and results outside the reportable range) as a function of the method of entry into the EMR. Secondary analysis comparing the impact of restricting drop-down menu options for urine color and clarity was also performed. These data are of use to others as they are diverse in terms of the test performed and the method of interface. Others may wish to analyze these data when making decisions as to how to perform and report these tests and when estimating risks of error with various methods of data entry.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.