Cited by 895

Chart reviews in emergency medicine research: Where are the methods?

Gilbert, Eric H, Lowenstein, Steven R, Koziol-McLain, Jane, Barta, Diane C, Steiner, John·1996·Annals of Emergency Medicine

Abstract

Study objective Medical chart reviews are often used in emergency medicine research. However, the reliability of data abstracted by chart reviews is seldom examined critically. The objective of this investigation was to determine the proportion of emergency medicine research articles that use data from chart reviews and the proportions that report methods of case selection, abstractor training, monitoring and blinding, and interrater agreement. Methods Research articles published in three emergency medicine journals from January 1989 through December 1993 were identified. The articles that used chart reviews were analyzed. Results Of 986 original research articles that were identified, 244 (25%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 22% to 28%) relied on chart reviews. Inclusion criteria were described in 98% (95% CI, 96% to 99%), and 73% (95% CI, 67% to 79%) defined the variables being analyzed. Other methods were seldom mentioned: abstractor training, 18% (95% CI, 13% to 23%); standardized abstraction forms, 11% (95% CI, 7% to 15%); periodic abstractor monitoring, 4% (95% CI, 2% to 7%); and abstractor blinding to study hypotheses, 3% (95% CI, 1% to 6%). Interrater reliability was mentioned in 5% (95% CI, 3% to 9%) and tested statistically in .4% (95% CI, 0% to 2%). A 15% random sample of articles was reassessed by a second investigator; interrater agreement was high for all eight criteria. Conclusion Chart review is a common method of data collection in emergency medicine research.…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0196-0644(96)70264-0

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Retrospective chart review methods have utility in identifying issues for further study, particularly when chart review protocols are standardized.

    “Despite limitations inherent in retrospective chart review methods, their utility in identifying issues for further study has been noted, particularly when chart review protocols are standardized (Gilbert, Lowenstein, Koziol-McLain, Barta, & Steiner, 1996).”

    From Drug-facilitated sexual assault, impaired trauma memory, and implications for mental health treatment (2022) · cites this paper as Gilbert, Lowenstein, Koziol-McLain, Barta, & Steiner, 1996

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gilbert, E. H., Lowenstein, S. R., Koziol-McLain, J., Barta, D. C., & Steiner, J.
Venue
Annals of Emergency Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1996-03
Volume
27
Issue
3
Pages
305-308
ISSN
0196-0644
Cited by
895
References
1
Language
en

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.

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