ArticleHRB open research2023
Validation of the rates of adverse event incidence in administrative healthcare data through patient chart review: A scoping review protocol.
Article in HRB open research, 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.
- A scoping review of the methodological approaches used in retrospective chart reviews to validate adverse event rates in administrative data.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patient safety is a key issue for health systems and a growing global public health challenge. Administrative healthcare data provide a coded summary of a patient and their encounter with the healthcare system. These aggregated datasets are often used to inform research and decisions relating to health service planning and therefore it is vital that they are accurate and reliable. Given the reported inaccuracy of these datasets for detecting and recording adverse events, there have been calls for validation studies to explore their reliability and investigate further their potential to inform research and health policy. Researchers have since carried out validation studies on the rates of adverse events in administrative data through chart reviews therefore, it seems appropriate to identify and chart the evidence and results of these studies within a scoping review. Methods: The scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews. A search of databases such as PubMed, CINAHL, ScienceDirect and Scopus will be conducted in addition to a search of the reference lists of sourced publications and a search for grey literature. Following this, Covidence will be used to screen the sourced publications and subsequently extract data from the included sources. A numerical summary of the literature will be presented in addition to a charting based on the qualitative content analysis of the studies included. Conclusions: This protocol provides the structure for the conduct of a review to identify and chart the evidence on validation studies on rates of adverse events in administrative healthcare data. This review will aim to identify research gaps, chart the evidence of and highlight any flaws within administrative datasets to improve extraction and coding practices and enable researchers and policy makers to use these data to their full potential.
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.