Dataset Information

Tables or bar graphs? Presenting test results in electronic medical records.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Electronic personal health records offer a promising way to communicate medical test results to patients. We compared the usability of tables and horizontal bar graphs for presenting medical test results electronically. METHODS:We conducted experiments with a convenience sample of 106 community-dwelling adults. In the first experiment, participants viewed either table or bar graph formats (between subjects) that presented medical test results with normal and abnormal findings. In a second experiment, participants viewed table and bar graph formats (within subjects) that presented test results with normal, borderline, and abnormal findings. RESULTS:Participants required less viewing time when using bar graphs rather than tables. This overall difference was due to superior performance of bar graphs in vignettes with many test results. Bar graphs and tables performed equally well with regard to recall accuracy and understanding. In terms of ease of use, participants did not prefer bar graphs to tables when they viewed only one format. When participants viewed both formats, those with experience with bar graphs preferred bar graphs, and those with experience with tables found bar graphs equally easy to use. Preference for bar graphs was strongest when viewing tests with borderline results. CONCLUSIONS:Compared to horizontal bar graphs, tables required more time and experience to achieve the same results, suggesting that tables can be a more burdensome format to use. The current practice of presenting medical test results in a tabular format merits reconsideration.

SUBMITTER: Brewer NT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3770735 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Jul-Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Tables or bar graphs? Presenting test results in electronic medical records.

Brewer Noel T NT Gilkey Melissa B MB Lillie Sarah E SE Hesse Bradford W BW Sheridan Stacey L SL

Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making 20120403 4

<h4>Background</h4>Electronic personal health records offer a promising way to communicate medical test results to patients. We compared the usability of tables and horizontal bar graphs for presenting medical test results electronically.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted experiments with a convenience sample of 106 community-dwelling adults. In the first experiment, participants viewed either table or bar graph formats (between subjects) that presented medical test results with normal and abnormal fi ...[more]

PMID: 22472914

Similar Datasets

Project description:Post-market medical device surveillance is a challenge facing manufacturers, regulatory agencies, and health care providers. Electronic health records are valuable sources of real-world evidence for assessing device safety and tracking device-related patient outcomes over time. However, distilling this evidence remains challenging, as information is fractured across clinical notes and structured records. Modern machine learning methods for machine reading promise to unlock increasingly complex information from text, but face barriers due to their reliance on large and expensive hand-labeled training sets. To address these challenges, we developed and validated state-of-the-art deep learning methods that identify patient outcomes from clinical notes without requiring hand-labeled training data. Using hip replacements-one of the most common implantable devices-as a test case, our methods accurately extracted implant details and reports of complications and pain from electronic health records with up to 96.3% precision, 98.5% recall, and 97.4% F1, improved classification performance by 12.8-53.9% over rule-based methods, and detected over six times as many complication events compared to using structured data alone. Using these additional events to assess complication-free survivorship of different implant systems, we found significant variation between implants, including for risk of revision surgery, which could not be detected using coded data alone. Patients with revision surgeries had more hip pain mentions in the post-hip replacement, pre-revision period compared to patients with no evidence of revision surgery (mean hip pain mentions 4.97 vs. 3.23; t?=?5.14; p?<?0.001). Some implant models were associated with higher or lower rates of hip pain mentions. Our methods complement existing surveillance mechanisms by requiring orders of magnitude less hand-labeled training data, offering a scalable solution for national medical device surveillance using electronic health records.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Administrative health records (AHRs) and electronic medical records (EMRs) are two key sources of population-based data for disease surveillance, but misclassification errors in the data can bias disease estimates. Methods that combine information from error-prone data sources can build on the strengths of AHRs and EMRs. We compared bias and error for four data-combining methods and applied them to estimate hypertension prevalence. METHODS:Our study included rule-based OR and AND methods that identify disease cases from either or both data sources, respectively, rule-based sensitivity-specificity adjusted (RSSA) method that corrects for inaccuracies using a deterministic rule, and probabilistic-based sensitivity-specificity adjusted (PSSA) method that corrects for error using a statistical model. Computer simulation was used to estimate relative bias (RB) and mean square error (MSE) under varying conditions of population disease prevalence, correlation amongst data sources, and amount of misclassification error. AHRs and EMRs for Manitoba, Canada were used to estimate hypertension prevalence using validated case definitions and multiple disease markers. RESULTS:The OR method had the lowest RB and MSE when population disease prevalence was 10%, and the RSSA method had the lowest RB and MSE when population prevalence increased to 20%. As the correlation between data sources increased, the OR method resulted in the lowest RB and MSE. Estimates of hypertension prevalence for AHRs and EMRs alone were 30.9% (95% CI: 30.6-31.2) and 24.9% (95% CI: 24.6-25.2), respectively. The estimates were 21.4% (95% CI: 21.1-21.7), for the AND method, 34.4% (95% CI: 34.1-34.8) for the OR method, 32.2% (95% CI: 31.8-32.6) for the RSSA method, and ranged from 34.3% (95% CI: 34.1-34.5) to 35.9% (95% CI, 35.7-36.1) for the PSSA method, depending on the statistical model. CONCLUSIONS:The OR and AND methods are influenced by correlation amongst the data sources, while the RSSA method is dependent on the accuracy of prior sensitivity and specificity estimates. The PSSA method performed well when population prevalence was high and average correlations amongst disease markers was low. This study will guide researchers to select a data-combining method that best suits their data characteristics.

Dataset Information

Tables or bar graphs? Presenting test results in electronic medical records.

Publications

Tables or bar graphs? Presenting test results in electronic medical records.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure