ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2025
Automated calculation of healthcare quality and safety indicators for head and neck cancers: a multicentric study using electronic health records.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo develop and validate algorithms to automate the calculation of Healthcare Quality and Safety Indicators (HQSIs) from electronic health records (EHR) multi-sources data.
methodsThree HQSIs of interest were identified by experts. The required variables were identified and algorithms for extracting these variables from various sources of EHR data, prioritized based on their quality, were performed and evaluated on the Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) and Bordeaux University Hospital clinical data warehouses (CDWs). Algorithm performances (positive predictive value (PPV), accuracy, f1-score) were assessed to a manual review of 100 EHRs randomly selected among newly referred patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) in 2023.
resultsThree HQSI were computed: number of newly referred HNC, number of HNC cases treated by front line anticancer surgery and the number of resected HNC cases requiring a post-operative surgery based on ICD-10 and their French Association pour le Développement de l’Informatique en Cytologie et en Anatomie Pathologique (ADICAP) pathology codes, 6,943 and 7,112 HNC patients were identified as referred to AP-HP and Bordeaux University Hospitals between 1998 and 2023, respectively. The algorithm related to the number of newly referred HNC diagnoses in 2023 had the following performances: PPV of 37% and 87% when ICD-10 codes solely were used, up to 89% and 100% when both data sources (ICD-10 and ADICAP codes) were used, in AP-HP and Bordeaux University Hospitals, respectively. The average discrepancy rate between both data sources was 44%. Based on surgery French coding of medical procedures (CCAM) and pathology ADICAP codes, 4, 231 newly referred HNC patients were identified with a frontline cancer surgery in AP-HP, between 1998 and 2024. The accuracy of such algorithm ranged from 65% for patients identified by CCAM solely to 84% for patients identified by CCAM and ADICAP codes. Among them, 436 patients had a surgical re-intervention in the 28 following days. Floor of the mouth (OR = 1.72; CI95, 1.02–2.90), mouth (OR = 1.59; CI95, 1.07–2.38), pyriform sinus (OR = 4.83; CI95, 1.65–14.13), and facial sinus cases (OR = 0.11; CI95, 0.02–0.82) were primary tumor sites with a modified risk of surgical re-intervention, respectively.
conclusionsLeveraging data from heterogeneous sources of EHR remains promising to improve the HQSI automated measurement for HNC patients.
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.