↓ Skip to main content

Cross sectional study to assess the accuracy of electronic health record data to identify patients in need of lung cancer screening

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Cross sectional study to assess the accuracy of electronic health record data to identify patients in need of lung cancer screening
Published in
BMC Research Notes, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13104-018-3124-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Allison M. Cole, Bethann Pflugeisen, Malaika R. Schwartz, Sophie Cain Miller

Abstract

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the United States [Siegel et al. in CA Cancer J Clin 66:7-30, 1]. However, evidence from clinical trials indicates that annual low-dose computed tomography screening reduces lung cancer mortality [Humphrey et al. in Ann Intern Med 159:411-420, 2]. The objective of this study is to report results of a study designed to assess the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value of an electronic health record (EHR) query in comparison to patient self-report, to identify patients who may benefit from lung cancer screening. Cross sectional study comparing patient self report to EHR derived assessment of tobacco status and need for lung cancer screening. We invited 200 current or former smokers, ages 55-80 to complete a brief paper survey. 26 responded and 24 were included in the analysis. For 30% of respondents, there was not adequate EHR data to make a lung cancer screening determination. Compared to patient self-report, EHR derived data has a 67% sensitivity and 82% specificity for identifying patients that meet criteria for lung cancer screening. While the degree of accuracy may be insufficient to make a final lung cancer screening determination, EHR data may be useful in prompting clinicians to initiate conversations with patients in regards to lung cancer screening.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 19%
Student > Master 7 16%
Other 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 7%
Lecturer 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 17 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 16%
Computer Science 4 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Decision Sciences 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 22 51%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

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 13 January 2018.
All research outputs
#18,583,054
of 23,016,919 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#3,036
of 4,283 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#331,560
of 443,289 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#122
of 178 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,016,919 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,283 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 443,289 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 178 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.