Chart reviews are frequently used for research, care assessments, and quality improvement activities despite an absence of data on reliability and validity. We aim to describe a structured chart review methodology and to establish its validity and reliability.
A generalizable structured chart review methodology was designed to evaluate causes of morbidity or mortality and to identify potential therapeutic advances. The review process consisted of a 2-tiered approach with a primary review completed by a site physician and a short secondary review completed by a central physician. A total of 327 randomly selected cases of known mortality or new morbidities were reviewed. Validity was assessed by using postreview surveys with a Likert scale. Reliability was assessed by percent agreement and interrater reliability.
The primary reviewers agreed or strongly agreed in 94.9% of reviews that the information to form a conclusion about pathophysiological processes and therapeutic advances could be adequately found. They agreed or strongly agreed in 93.2% of the reviews that conclusions were easy to make, and confidence in the process was 94.2%. Secondary reviewers made modifications to 36.6% of cases. Duplicate reviews (n = 41) revealed excellent percent agreement for the causes (80.5%-100%) and therapeutic advances (68.3%-100%). κ statistics were strong for the pathophysiological categories but weaker for the therapeutic categories.
A structured chart review by knowledgeable primary reviewers, followed by a brief secondary review, can be valid and reliable.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 December 2019.
All research outputs
#20,597,497
of 23,184,056 outputs
Outputs from Hospital Pediatrics
#1,141
of 1,279 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#381,883
of 457,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Hospital Pediatrics
#41
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,184,056 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,279 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 457,187 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
