Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
: 20 | 50 | 100
1 - 4 de 4
1.
J Med Internet Res ; 24(5): e37931, 2022 05 18.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35476727

BACKGROUND: Admissions are generally classified as COVID-19 hospitalizations if the patient has a positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test. However, because 35% of SARS-CoV-2 infections are asymptomatic, patients admitted for unrelated indications with an incidentally positive test could be misclassified as a COVID-19 hospitalization. Electronic health record (EHR)-based studies have been unable to distinguish between a hospitalization specifically for COVID-19 versus an incidental SARS-CoV-2 hospitalization. Although the need to improve classification of COVID-19 versus incidental SARS-CoV-2 is well understood, the magnitude of the problems has only been characterized in small, single-center studies. Furthermore, there have been no peer-reviewed studies evaluating methods for improving classification. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study are to, first, quantify the frequency of incidental hospitalizations over the first 15 months of the pandemic in multiple hospital systems in the United States and, second, to apply electronic phenotyping techniques to automatically improve COVID-19 hospitalization classification. METHODS: From a retrospective EHR-based cohort in 4 US health care systems in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Illinois, a random sample of 1123 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive patients hospitalized from March 2020 to August 2021 was manually chart-reviewed and classified as "admitted with COVID-19" (incidental) versus specifically admitted for COVID-19 ("for COVID-19"). EHR-based phenotyping was used to find feature sets to filter out incidental admissions. RESULTS: EHR-based phenotyped feature sets filtered out incidental admissions, which occurred in an average of 26% of hospitalizations (although this varied widely over time, from 0% to 75%). The top site-specific feature sets had 79%-99% specificity with 62%-75% sensitivity, while the best-performing across-site feature sets had 71%-94% specificity with 69%-81% sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive admissions were incidental. Straightforward EHR-based phenotypes differentiated admissions, which is important to assure accurate public health reporting and research.


COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Electronic Health Records , Hospitalization , Humans , Retrospective Studies
2.
medRxiv ; 2022 Feb 18.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35350202

Admissions are generally classified as COVID-19 hospitalizations if the patient has a positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test. However, because 35% of SARS-CoV-2 infections are asymptomatic, patients admitted for unrelated indications with an incidentally positive test could be misclassified as a COVID-19 hospitalization. EHR-based studies have been unable to distinguish between a hospitalization specifically for COVID-19 versus an incidental SARS-CoV-2 hospitalization. From a retrospective EHR-based cohort in four US healthcare systems, a random sample of 1,123 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive patients hospitalized between 3/2020â€"8/2021 was manually chart-reviewed and classified as admitted-with-COVID-19 (incidental) vs. specifically admitted for COVID-19 (for-COVID-19). EHR-based phenotyped feature sets filtered out incidental admissions, which occurred in 26%. The top site-specific feature sets had 79-99% specificity with 62-75% sensitivity, while the best performing across-site feature set had 71-94% specificity with 69-81% sensitivity. A large proportion of SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive admissions were incidental. Straightforward EHR-based phenotypes differentiated admissions, which is important to assure accurate public health reporting and research.

3.
J Am Board Fam Med ; 29(2): 218-25, 2016.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26957378

INTRODUCTION: Variation in clinical practice resulting from the absence of evidence-based treatment protocols has negative implications on both the cost and the quality of medical care. The objective of this study was to assess whether a standard of care for the treatment of extra-articular nondisplaced distal radius fracture has developed despite the lack of a conclusive recommendation from the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. METHODS: A case-vignette survey was conducted. Treatment type and duration of casting selections were analyzed. The cost implications of responses were assessed. Participants were practicing orthopedists primarily in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States. Orthopedists (n = 494) were recruited via E-mail and at the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Annual Meeting held in Chicago in March 2013. Inclusion criteria required that participants be graduates of an accredited medical school and be practicing orthopedists at the time of survey distribution. The main outcome measure was surgical or nonsurgical intervention. RESULTS: Nonsurgical treatment was selected by 60% of respondents, with surgery preferred by 37%. Duration of casting responses varied from 2 to 12 weeks. Among nonsurgical responses, 69% indicated 6 weeks as their preferred duration of casting (95% confidence interval, 64.9-73.1%). Surgery imposes a 76% greater total cost to society than nonsurgical treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest the absence of a consensus strategy for the treatment of extra-articular nondisplaced distal radius fractures. Implications of variance in treatment on cost and quality support the need for established, evidence-based guidelines or further clinical trials to assist in the management of this common fracture.


Cost-Benefit Analysis , Evidence-Based Medicine/standards , Radius Fractures/therapy , Standard of Care/economics , Adult , Casts, Surgical , Chicago , Electronic Mail , Evidence-Based Medicine/economics , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Orthopedic Surgeons , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Radius Fractures/surgery , Surveys and Questionnaires , United States
4.
Neurobiol Aging ; 34(4): 1145-7, 2013 Apr.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23036586

Individuals who report subjective cognitive complaints but perform normally on neuropsychological tests might be at increased risk for pathological cognitive aging. The current study examined the effects of the presence of subjective cognitive complaints on functional brain activity during a working memory task in a sample of middle-aged postmenopausal women. Twenty-three postmenopausal women aged 50-60 completed a cognitive complaint battery of questionnaires. Using 20% of items endorsed as the threshold, 12 women were categorized as cognitive complainers (CC) and 11 were noncomplainers (NC). All subjects then took part in a functional magnetic resonance imaging scanning session during which they completed a visual-verbal N-back test of working memory. Results showed no difference in working memory performance between CC and NC groups. However, the CC group showed greater activation relative to the NC group in a broad network involved in working memory including the middle frontal gyrus (Brodmann area [BA] 9 and 10), the precuneus (BA 7), and the cingulate gyrus (BA 24 and 32). The CC group recruited additional regions of the working memory network compared with the NC group as the working memory load and difficulty of the task increased. This study showed brain activation differences during working memory performance in a middle-aged group of postmenopausal women with subjective cognitive complaints but without objective cognitive deficit. These findings suggest that subjective cognitive complaints in postmenopausal women might be associated with increased cortical activity during effort-demanding cognitive tasks.


Cerebral Cortex/physiopathology , Cognition Disorders/physiopathology , Cognition , Memory, Short-Term , Nerve Net/physiopathology , Postmenopause , Brain Mapping , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged
...