Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 226

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Using Computerized Data to Identify Adverse Drug Events in Outpatients

Open access
Honigman, B., Lee, J., Rothschild, J., Light, P., Pulling, R. M., Yu, T., Bates, D. W.·2001·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use of a computer program to identify adverse drug events (ADEs) in the ambulatory setting and to evaluate the relative contribution of four computer search methods for identifying ADEs, including diagnosis codes, allergy rules, computer event monitoring rules, and text searching. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of one year of data from an electronic medical record, including records for 23,064 patients with a primary care physician, of whom 15,665 actually came for care. MEASUREMENT: Presence of an ADE; sensitivity and specificity of computer searches for ADE. RESULTS: The computer program identified 25,056 incidents, which were associated with an estimated 864 (95 percent confidence interval [CI], 750-978) ADES. Thus, the ADE rate was 5.5 (CI, 5.2-5.9) per 100 patients coming for care. Furthermore, in 79 (CI, 68-89) ADEs, the patient required hospitalization, resulting in an estimated rate of 3.4 (CI, 2.7-4.3) admissions per 1,000 patients. The sensitivity of the search methods for identifying ADEs was estimated to be 58 (CI, 18-98) percent, and the estimated specificity was 88 (CI, 87-88) percent. The positive predictive value was 7.5 (CI, 6.5-8.5) percent, and the negative predictive value was 99.2 (CI, 95.5-99.98) percent. Compared with age and gender-matched controls with no positive screen, patients with ADEs had twice as many outpatient visits and were taking nearly three times as many drugs. Antihypertensives, ACE-inhibitors, antibiotics, and diuretics were associated with 56 (CI, 47-65) percent of ADES. Among ADEs, 23 (CI, 16-32) percent were life-threatening or serious, and 38 (CI, 29-47) percent were judged preventable. CONCLUSION: Computerized search programs can detect ADEs, and free-text searches were especially useful. Adverse drug events were frequent, and admissions were not rare, although most hospitals today do not identify them. Thus, such detection programs demonstrate "value-added" for the electronic record and may be useful for directing and assessing the impact of quality improvement efforts.

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 · 10.1136/jamia.2001.0080254

Cites

2 of 2 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

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

Cited by

See all 226

Metadata

Authors
Honigman, B., Lee, J., Rothschild, J., Light, P., Pulling, R. M., Yu, T., & Bates, D. W.
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
2001-05-01
Volume
8
Issue
3
Pages
254-266
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W1959452164
Cited by
226
References
2
FWCI
13.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Using Computerized Data to Identify Adverse Drug Events in Outpatients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/jamia.2001.0080254
The paper
Honigman, B., Lee, J., Rothschild, J., Light, P., Pulling, R. M., Yu, T., & Bates, D. W. (2001). Using Computerized Data to Identify Adverse Drug Events in Outpatients. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. https://doi.org/10.1136/jamia.2001.0080254

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.