Cited by 47Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug ReactionsElectronic Health Records SystemsMedical Coding and Health Information

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Using electronic medical record data to report laboratory adverse events

Open access

Abstract

Summary: Despite the importance of adverse event (AE) reporting, AEs are under‐reported on clinical trials. We hypothesized that electronic medical record (EMR) data can ascertain laboratory‐based AEs more accurately than those ascertained manually. EMR data on 12 AEs for patients enrolled on two Children's Oncology Group (COG) trials at one institution were extracted, processed and graded. When compared to gold standard chart data, COG AE report sensitivity and positive predictive values (PPV) were 0–21·1% and 20–100%, respectively. EMR sensitivity and PPV were >98·2% for all AEs. These results demonstrate that EMR‐based AE ascertainment and grading substantially improves laboratory AE reporting accuracy.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/bjh.14538

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Miller, T. P., Li, Y., Getz, K. D., Dudley, J., Burrows, E., Pennington, J., Ibrahimova, A., Fisher, B. T., Bagatell, R., Seif, A. E., Grundmeier, R., & Aplenc, R.
Affiliations
  • Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (US)
  • Jefferson Einstein Philadelphia Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Miller, Tamara P.
Venue
British Journal of Haematology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-02
Volume
177
Issue
2
Pages
283-286
ISSN
  • 0007-1048 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2141
OpenAlex
W2584243050
Cited by
47
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1
FWCI
3.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of Haematology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (R01 CA165277, K12 CA076931)
  • St. Baldrick's Foundation
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
Keywords
adverse event reporting, electronic health records, adverse event grading, Children's Oncology Group trials, sensitivity and positive predictive value, underreporting
MeSH terms
Humans, Laboratories, Retrospective Studies, Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems, Electronic Health Records, Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions

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