The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 24 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Notification of Abnormal Lab Test Results in an Electronic Medical Record: Do Any Safety Concerns Remain?
Open accessAbstract
Background: Follow-up of abnormal outpatient laboratory test results is a major patient safety concern. Electronic medical records can potentially address this concern through automated notification. We examined whether automated notifications of abnormal laboratory results (alerts) in an integrated electronic medical record resulted in timely follow-up actions. Methods: We studied four alerts: hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) ≥15%, positive hepatitis C antibody (HCV), prostate specific antigen (PSA) ≥15 ng/mL, and thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) ≥ 15 mIU/L. An alert tracking system determined whether the alert was acknowledged (i.e. provider clicked on and opened the message) within two weeks of transmission; acknowledged alerts were considered read. Within 30 days of result transmission, record review and provider contact determined follow-up actions (e.g. patient contact, treatment etc.). Multivariable logistic regression models analyzed predictors for lack of timely follow-up. Results: Between May 2008 and December 2008, 78,158 tests (HbA1c, HCV, TSH and PSA) were performed, of which 1163 (1.48%) were transmitted as alerts; 10.2% of these (119/1163) were unacknowledged. Timely follow-up was lacking in 79 (6.8%) and was statistically not different for acknowledged and unacknowledged alerts (6.4% vs. 10.1%; p =.13). Two-hundred two alerts (17.4% of 1163) arose from unnecessarily ordered (redundant) tests. Alerts for a new versus known diagnosis were more likely to lack timely follow-up (OR: 7.35; 95% CI: 4.16-12.97) whereas alerts related to redundant tests were less likely to lack timely follow-up (OR: 0.24; 95% CI: 0.07-0.84). Conclusions: Safety concerns related to timely patient follow-up remain despite automated notification of non-life threatening abnormal laboratory results in the outpatient setting.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
14 Own result · 7 Not checked yet · 5 Own method · 5 Own interpretation
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two-hundred two alerts (17.4% of 1163) arose from unnecessarily ordered (redundant) tests.”
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
“Two-hundred two alerts (17.4% of 1163) were considered redundant”
§ Notification of abnormal lab test results in an electronic medical record: do any safety concerns remain? > Abstract > Results:
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Timely follow-up was lacking in 79 (6.8%) and was statistically not different for acknowledged and unacknowledged alerts (6.4% vs. 10.1%; p =.13).”
- Also stated in: § Lack of Timely Follow-up · plain
“Statistically, there was no significant difference in rates of lack of timely follow-up between acknowledged and unacknowledged laboratory alerts (6.4% vs. 10.1%; p=.13).”
§ Notification of abnormal lab test results in an electronic medical record: do any safety concerns remain? > Abstract > Results:
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Lack of Timely Follow-up · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“in only 11 (7%) of these 159 cases would the provider have received a computerized reminder prompting them of potential redundancy based on repetition.”
§ Notification of abnormal lab test results in an electronic medical record: do any safety concerns remain? > RESULTS > Alerts Related to Redundant Tests
hedgedn = 159- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Timely follow-up was lacking in 79 (6.8%)”
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
“Of these, 79 alerts (6.8% of total) were determined to lack timely follow-up.”
§ Notification of abnormal lab test results in an electronic medical record: do any safety concerns remain? > Abstract > Results:
plainn = 94- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Between May 2008 and December 2008, 27,092 HbA1c, 22,837 PSA, 6271 HCV and 21,958 TSH tests were performed.”
- Also stated in: § Results: · plain
“Between May 2008 and December 2008, 78,158 tests (HbA1c, HCV, TSH and PSA) were performed”
§ Notification of abnormal lab test results in an electronic medical record: do any safety concerns remain? > RESULTS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Results: · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“allied health care providers as ordering providers (OR, 4.32; 95% CI: 1.21-15.52) and trainees as ordering providers (OR, 8.39, 95% CI: 2.97-23.68).”
§ Notification of abnormal lab test results in an electronic medical record: do any safety concerns remain? > RESULTS > Lack of Acknowledgement
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“10.2% of these (119/1163) were unacknowledged.”
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
“Acknowledged alerts constituted 89.8% of the total high-priority alerts (1163).”
§ Notification of abnormal lab test results in an electronic medical record: do any safety concerns remain? > Abstract > Results:
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A total of 1163 (1.49%) results were electronically transmitted as mandatory high-priority alerts”
- Also stated in: § Results: · plain
“of which 1163 (1.48%) were transmitted as alerts”
§ Notification of abnormal lab test results in an electronic medical record: do any safety concerns remain? > RESULTS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Results: · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“alerts related to redundant tests were less likely to lack timely follow-up (OR: 0.24; 95% CI: 0.07-0.84).”
- Also stated in: § Lack of Timely Follow-up · plain
“Redundant tests were more likely to receive follow-up (p<.01).”
- Also stated in: § Lack of Timely Follow-up · plain
“redundant tests (OR: 0.24; 95% CI: 0.074-0.84) with appropriately ordered tests as referent”
§ Notification of abnormal lab test results in an electronic medical record: do any safety concerns remain? > Abstract > Results:
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Lack of Timely Follow-up · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“mental health as a specialty (OR: 2.82; 95% CI: 1.06-7.54) with primary care as referent.”
§ Notification of abnormal lab test results in an electronic medical record: do any safety concerns remain? > RESULTS > Lack of Timely Follow-up
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 8
- Probably not a substantial claim. 5
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Trainees were less likely to acknowledge alerts compared to attending/staff physicians and allied health providers (physician assistants and nurse practitioners) whereas specialty services (including mental health) were less likely to acknowledge alerts compared to primary care providers (p<.0001 for both).”
§ Notification of abnormal lab test results in an electronic medical record: do any safety concerns remain? > RESULTS > Lack of Acknowledgement
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we found 28 cases where the provider ordered the test too soon after the last PSA, TSH or HbA1c and in 131 cases a second HCV ELISA test was ordered despite the presence of a previous positive test.”
§ Notification of abnormal lab test results in an electronic medical record: do any safety concerns remain? > RESULTS > Alerts Related to Redundant Tests
plainn = 159- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No evidence of documented follow-up action was found in 307 (26.4%) of the alerts, however 213 (18.3% of 1163) cases were categorized as no-impact alerts.”
§ Notification of abnormal lab test results in an electronic medical record: do any safety concerns remain? > RESULTS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“many factors including a large sample size, multiple clinics, large number of providers (over 500 from different specialties), rigorous methods to determine follow-up, explicit criteria for determination of redundant tests, various types of abnormal lab alerts and an advanced integrated electronic medical record used in VA facilities throughout the US, all add several unique strengths to our study”
§ Notification of abnormal lab test results in an electronic medical record: do any safety concerns remain? > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We also lack comparable data from non-electronic medical record based systems and cannot comment on the effectiveness of automated notification compared to these systems.”
§ Notification of abnormal lab test results in an electronic medical record: do any safety concerns remain? > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“notifications of abnormal redundant tests appear to be a distracting influence on providers who are missing essential alerts for newly diagnosed conditions.”
§ Notification of abnormal lab test results in an electronic medical record: do any safety concerns remain? > DISCUSSION
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Outpatient care is often busy and fragmented, and therefore follow-up of abnormal laboratory test results is prone to error.”
§ Notification of abnormal lab test results in an electronic medical record: do any safety concerns remain? > BACKGROUND
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [1] Edelman, 2002, Outpatient diagnostic errors: unrecognized hyperglycemia, Eff Clin Pract
- Not checked yetcites [2] Hickner, 2008, Testing process errors and their harms and consequences reported from family medicine practices: a study of the American Academy of Family Physicians National Research Network, Qual Saf Health Care source
- Not checked yetcites [3] Hickner, 2005, Issues and initiatives in the testing process in primary care physician offices, Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf
- Not checked yetcites [4] Poon, 2004, “I wish I had seen this test result earlier!”: dissatisfaction with test result management systems in primary care, Arch Intern Med source
- Not checked yetcites [5] Schiff, 2005, Missed hypothyroidism diagnosis uncovered by linking laboratory and pharmacy data, Arch Intern Med source
- Not checked yetcites [6] Wahls, 2007, The continuing problem of missed test results in an integrated health system with an advanced electronic medical record, Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf
- Not checked yetcites [7] Wahls, 2007, Diagnostic errors and abnormal diagnostic tests lost to follow-up: a source of needless waste and delay to treatment, J Ambul Care Manage source
- Not checked yetcites [8] Bates, 2005, Doing better with critical test results, Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf
- Not checked yetcites [9] Schiff, 2005, Introduction: communicating critical test results, Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf
- Not checked yetcites [10] Nepple, 2008, Prevalence of delayed clinician response to elevated prostate-specific antigen values, Mayo Clin Proc source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“a second study investigator evaluated the medical record to confirm the findings and contacted the provider by telephone to obtain any additional evidence of undocumented follow-up or a decision to not pursue follow-up.”
§ Notification of abnormal lab test results in an electronic medical record: do any safety concerns remain? > METHODS > Data Collection
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“We used objective pre-defined explicit criteria to determine redundancy of tests (criteria specified in Table 3).”
§ Notification of abnormal lab test results in an electronic medical record: do any safety concerns remain? > METHODS > Data Collection
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [20] van Walraven, 1998, Do we know what inappropriate laboratory utilization is?, JAMA source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hierarchical multivariable logistic regression models accounting for clustering of laboratory tests by providers were used to identify factors associated with the outcome variables”
§ Notification of abnormal lab test results in an electronic medical record: do any safety concerns remain? > METHODS > Data analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“a reviewer blinded to acknowledgement status evaluated the medical record using a standardized pre-tested data collection instrument to determine any follow-up actions”
§ Notification of abnormal lab test results in an electronic medical record: do any safety concerns remain? > METHODS > Data Collection
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“In previous work, we found abnormal diagnostic imaging alerts may not always be reviewed by ordering practitioners, and practitioners who review them may not always act upon the transmitted results in a timely manner.”
§ Notification of abnormal lab test results in an electronic medical record: do any safety concerns remain? > BACKGROUND
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [19] Singh, 2009, Timely follow-up of abnormal diagnostic imaging test results in an outpatient setting: are electronic medical records achieving their potential?, Arch Intern Med source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Follow-up of an abnormal result depends on providers reviewing and acting on the electronic communication of the result.
“Abnormal result follow-up, however, will occur only if electronic communication of test results (either through alerts or direct access of test result) is reviewed and acted upon by providers.”
The paper relies on this without support.
A substantial share of outpatient lab results are not urgent enough to require verbal reporting to the ordering clinician.
“many laboratory test results in the outpatient setting may not be immediately life threatening and hence not verbally reported to the ordering provider.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“On the basis of the anticipated rate of appropriately identified abnormal test results in the literature12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21 and the anticipated magnitude of the association of the enhanced EHR, we required a sample size of 30 participants, each reviewing 35 test results, to achieve 80% power to detect a statistically significant difference in cognitive workload and performance.”
From Association of the Usability of Electronic Health Records With Cognitive Workload and Performance Levels Among Physicians (2019) · cites this paper as [21]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Even in the EHR environment, with alerts and reminders in place, physicians continue to often inappropriately manage abnormal test results.12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21”
From Association of the Usability of Electronic Health Records With Cognitive Workload and Performance Levels Among Physicians (2019) · cites this paper as [21]
In the citing paper
“The model accounts for the complexities of technology, its users, the involved workflow, and the larger external or organizational policies and context in assessment of EHR-related safety concerns.35 36”
From An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns (2014) · cites this paper as [36]
In the citing paper
“Efforts to improve EHR-related patient safety rely on identification of underlying risks as well as an appreciation of contributing areas of vulnerability”
From Exploring the sociotechnical intersection of patient safety and electronic health record implementation (2014) · cites this paper as [23]
Citations
Cites
Work system design for patient safety: the SEIPS model
Carayon, P., Schoofs Hundt, A., Karsh, B.-T., Gurses, A. P., Alvarado, C. J., Smith, M., & Flatley Brennan, P. (2006) · Quality in Health Care · doi:10.1136/qshc.2005.015842 · Cited by 1,795
Diagnostic error in internal medicine
Graber, M. L., Franklin, N., & Gordon, R. (2005) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.165.13.1493 · Cited by 1,549
A cost-benefit analysis of electronic medical records in primary care
Wang, S. J., Middleton, B., Prosser, L. A., Bardon, C. G., Spurr, C. D., Carchidi, P. J., Kittler, A. F., Goldszer, R. C., Fairchild, D. G., Sussman, A. J., et al. (2003) · The American Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0002-9343(03)00057-3 · Cited by 740
Missed and delayed diagnoses in the ambulatory setting: a study of closed malpractice claims
Gandhi, T. K., Kachalia, A., Thomas, E. J., Puopolo, A. L., Yoon, C., Brennan, T. A., & Studdert, D. M. (2006) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-145-7-200610030-00006 · Cited by 662 · cited 1×
“Arch Intern Med 2005;165 (13):1493–1499.”
Self-citationvan Walraven, C., & Naylor, C. D. (1998) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.280.6.550 · Cited by 373
Poon, E. G., Gandhi, T. K., Sequist, T. D., Murff, H. J., Karson, A. S., & Bates, D. W. (2004) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.164.20.2223 · Cited by 301 · cited 4×
“J Am Med Inform Assoc 2007;14(4):459– 466.”
InfluentialBates, D. W., Kuperman, G. J., Rittenberg, E., Teich, J. M., Fiskio, J., Ma’luf, N., Onderdonk, A., Wybenga, D., Winkelman, J., Brennan, T. A., et al. (1999) · The American Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0002-9343(98)00410-0 · Cited by 292
Fumbled handoffs: one dropped ball after another
Gandhi, T. K. (2005) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-142-5-200503010-00010 · Cited by 246
Singh, H., Thomas, E. J., Mani, S., Sittig, D., Arora, H., Espadas, D., Khan, M. M., & Petersen, L. A. (2009) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2009.263 · Cited by 212
Self-citationSingh, H., Naik, A. D., Rao, R., & Petersen, L. A. (2008) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-007-0393-z · Cited by 162
Self-citation
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Sittig, D. F., & Singh, H. (2010) · Quality and Safety in Health Care · doi:10.1136/qshc.2010.042085 · Cited by 897
Self-citationFailure to Follow-Up Test Results for Ambulatory Patients: A Systematic Review
Callen, J. L., Westbrook, J. I., Georgiou, A., & Li, J. (2012) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-011-1949-5 · Cited by 229
“This contributes to the variability of responsibility and the diversity of work practices around each of the steps in the test management process.2,29,33,34,39,40 Singh et al.39 concluded that if policies and procedures were in place, combined with the use of an electronic alert notification of abnormal radiology, the…”
BackgroundResultInfluentialInformation Overload and Missed Test Results in Electronic Health Record–Based Settings
Singh, H., Spitzmueller, C., Petersen, N. J., Sawhney, M. K., & Sittig, D. F. (2013) · JAMA Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/2013.jamainternmed.61 · Cited by 209
Self-citationAn analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns
Meeks, D. W., Smith, M. W., Taylor, L., Sittig, D. F., Scott, J. M., & Singh, H. (2014) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2013-002578 · Cited by 207
Self-citationAdvancing the science of measurement of diagnostic errors in healthcare: the Safer Dx framework
Singh, H., & Sittig, D. F. (2015) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003675 · Cited by 207
“52 In a different study, we found that the same technical intervention to improve test result follow-up in two different VA facilities led to improved outcomes in only one facility.”
BackgroundSelf-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Singh, H., Thomas, E. J., Sittig, D. F., Wilson, L., Espadas, D., Khan, M. M., & Petersen, L. A.
- Affiliations
- Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center (US)
- Memorial Hermann (US)
- Corresponding author
- Singh, Hardeep
- Venue
- The American Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010-03
- Volume
- 123
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 238-244
- ISSN
- 0002-9343 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC2878665
- OpenAlex
- W1981106602
- Semantic Scholar
- 6cb4dbf1bbfb77ebcb84cea2013870878498f97c
- Cited by
- 160
- References
- 30
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 10
- FWCI
- 28.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- The American Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Digital Commons-TMC (Texas Medical Center) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (K23CA125585)
- VA National Center for Patient Safety (R18 HS17244-02)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Medical Laboratory Technology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
- Keywords
- laboratory abnormalities, electronic health records, patient safety, HbA1c, anti-HCV antibodies, prostate-specific antigen, thyroid-stimulating hormone, outpatient care
- MeSH terms
- Communication, Diagnostic Errors, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Hepatitis C, Humans, Male, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Primary Health Care, Retrospective Studies, United States, Medical Records Systems, Computerized
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-07, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-07 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
