Using probabilistic corrections to account for abstractor agreement in medical record reviews

American Journal of Epidemiology

Volumn 165, Issue 12, 2007, Pages 1454-1461

  Lash, Timothy L ^a,b   Fox, Matthew P ^a   Thwin, Soe Soe ^a,c   Geiger, Ann M ^d,e   Buist, Diana S M ^f   Wei, Feifei ^g   Field, Terry S ^h,i   Yood, Marianne Ulcickas ^j,k   Frost, Floyd J ^l   Quinn, Virginia P ^e   Prout, Marianne N ^c   Silliman, Rebecca A ^a,b,c  

^a BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^b BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c BOSTON MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^d WAKE FOREST SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^e KAISER PERMANENTE   (United States)

^f CENTER FOR HEALTH STUDIES   (United States)

^g HEALTHPARTNERS RESEARCH FOUNDATION   (United States)

^h UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

ⁱ Fallon Community Health Plan   (United States)

^j HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM   (United States)

^k YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^l Lovelace Sandia Health Systems   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

Breast neoplasms; Data collection; Epidemiologic methods; Medical records

Indexed keywords

CANCER; DATA ACQUISITION; DATA QUALITY; DISEASE TREATMENT; EPIDEMIOLOGY; TUMOR;

AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER RECURRENCE; CANCER STAGING; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL RECORD; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PROBABILITY; TUMOR VOLUME; BREAST TUMOR; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMORBIDITY; DOCUMENTATION; MASTECTOMY; METHODOLOGY; MULTICENTER STUDY; PATHOLOGY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TUMOR RECURRENCE; UNITED STATES;

ABSTRACTING AND INDEXING; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BREAST NEOPLASMS; COMORBIDITY; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; MASTECTOMY; MEDICAL RECORDS; NEOPLASM RECURRENCE, LOCAL; PROBABILITY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 34547394369     PISSN: 00029262     EISSN: 14766256     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwm034     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Yawn BP, Wollan P. Interrater reliability: completing the methods description in medical records review studies. Am J Epidemiol 2005;161:974-7.
2. Cassidy LD, Marsh GM, Holleran MK, et al. Methodology to improve data quality from chart review in the managed care setting. Am J Manag Care 2002;8:787-93.
3. Reisch LM, Scura Fosse J, Beverly K, et al. Training, quality assurance, and assessment of medical record abstraction in a multisite study. Am J Epidemiol 2003;157:546-51.
4. Gilbert EH, Lowensten SR, Koziol-McLain J, et al. Chart reviews in emergency medicine research: where are the methods? Ann Emerg Med 1996;27:305-8.
5. Sheikh K. Re: "Interrater reliability: completing the methods description in medical records review studies." (Letter). Am J Epidemiol 2005;162:919.
6. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159-74.
7. Yawn BP, Wollan PM. Re: "Interrater reliability: completing the methods description in medical records review studies." (Reply to letter). Am J Epidemiol 2005;162:919-20.
8. Enger SM, Thwin SS, Buist DS, et al. Breast cancer treatment of older women in integrated health care settings. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:4377-83.
9. Fleming ID, Cooper JS, Henson DE, et al. AJCC cancer staging manual. 5th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 1997.
10. Johnson CH, ed. SEER program coding and staging manual 2004. 4th ed. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute, 2004. (NIH publication no. 04-5581). (http://seer.cancer.gov/tools/codingmanuals/).
11. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, et al. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987;40:373-83.
12. Hebert-Croteau N, Brisson J, Latreille J, et al. Compliance with consensus recommendations for the treatment of early stage breast carcinoma in elderly women. Cancer 1999;85:1104-13.
13. Newschaffer CJ, Bush TL, Penberthy LT. Comorbidity measurement in elderly female breast cancer patients with administrative and medical records data. J Clin Epidemiol 1997;50:725-33.
14. Lash TL, Fink AK. Semi-automated sensitivity analysis to assess systematic errors in observational epidemiologic data. Epidemiology 2003;14:451-8.
15. Fox MP, Lash TL, Greenland S. A method to automate probabilistic sensitivity analyses of misclassified binary variables. Int J Epidemiol 2005;34:1370-6.
16. Geiger AM, Thwin SS, Lash TL, et al. Recurrences and second primary breast cancers in older women with early stage disease initially. Cancer 2007;109:966-74.
17. Greenland S. Interval estimation by simulation as an alternative to and extension of confidence intervals. Int J Epidemiol 2004;33:1389-97.
18. Greenland S. Multiple bias modelling for analysis of observational data. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc 2005;168:267-306.
19. Hu P, Tsiatis AA, Davidian M. Estimating the parameters in the Cox model when covariate variables are measured with error. Biometrics 1998;54:1407-19.
20. Zucker DM, Spiegelman D. Inference for the proportional hazards model with misclassified discrete-valued covariates. Biometrics 2004;60:324-34.
21. Zucker DM. A pseudo-partial likelihood method for semiparametric survival regression with covariate errors. J Am Stat Assoc 2005;100:1264-77.
22. Li Y, Ryan L. Inference on survival data with covariate measurement error - an imputation-based approach. Scand J Stat 2006;33:169-90.
23. Liu K, Stone RA, Mazumdar S, et al. Covariate measurement error in the Cox model: a simulation study. Commun Stat Simul Comput 2004;33:1077-93.
24. Xie SX, Wang CY, Prentice RL. A risk set calibration method for failure time regression by using a covariate reliability sample. J R Stat Soc Ser B Stat Methodol 2001;63:855-70.
25. Huang YJ, Wang CY. Cox regression with accurate covariates unascertainable: a nonparametric-correction approach. J Am Stat Assoc 2000;95:1209-19.
26. Hu CC, Lin DY. Cox regression with covariate measurement error. Scand J Stat 2002;29:637-55.
27. Horwitz RI, Yu EC. Assessing the reliability of epidemiologic data obtained from medical records. J Chronic Dis 1984;37:825-31.
28. Boyd NF, Pater JL, Ginsburg AD, et al. Observer variation in the classification of information from medical records. J Chronic Dis 1979;32:327-32.
29. Lash TL. Heuristic thinking and inference from observational epidemiology. Epidemiology 2007;18:67-72.