Erratum : Multi-center colonoscopy quality measurement utilizing natural language processing (American Journal of Gastroenterology (2015) 110 (543-552) DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2015.51;Multi-center colonoscopy quality measurement utilizing natural language processing

American Journal of Gastroenterology

Volumn 110, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 543-552

  Imler, Timothy D ^a,b   Morea, Justin ^a,b   Kahi, Charles ^a,c   Cardwell, Jon ^c   Johnson, Cynthia S ^a   Xu, Huiping ^a   Ahnen, Dennis ^d   Antaki, Fadi ^e   Ashley, Christopher ^f   Baffy, Gyorgy ^g   Cho, Ilseung ^h   Dominitz, Jason ⁱ   Hou, Jason ^j   Korsten, Mark ^k   Nagar, Anil ^l   Promrat, Kittichai ^m   Robertson, Douglas ⁿ   Saini, Sameer ^o   Shergill, Amandeep ^p   Smalley, Walter ^q   Imperiale, Thomas F ^a,b,c   more..

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b REGENSTRIEF INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

^e WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^f ALBANY MEDICAL COLLEGE   (United States)

^g VA BOSTON HEALTHCARE SYSTEM   (United States)

^h NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^j BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^k MOUNT SINAI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^l YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^m BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

ⁿ DARTMOUTH INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH POLICY AND CLINICAL PRACTICE   (United States)

^o UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^p UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^q VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADENOCARCINOMA IN SITU; ADENOMATOUS POLYP; ARTICLE; COLON ADENOCARCINOMA; COLON ADENOMA; COLON POLYP; COLONOSCOPY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MULTICENTER STUDY; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; RECTUM ADENOMA; RECTUM CARCINOMA; RECTUM POLYP; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; ADENOMA; CLINICAL TRIAL; COLONIC POLYPS; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; HYPERPLASIA; MEDICAL RECORD; PROCEDURES; STANDARD; STANDARDS;

ADENOMA; COLONIC POLYPS; COLONOSCOPY; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; HUMANS; HYPERPLASIA; MEDICAL RECORDS; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING; REFERENCE STANDARDS;

EID: 84927800663     PISSN: 00029270     EISSN: 15720241     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2015.349     Document Type: Erratum

References (39)

1. Kahi CJ, Vemulapalli KC, Johnson CS. et al. Improving measurement of the adenoma detection rate and adenoma per colonoscopy quality metric: the Indiana University experience. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 79: 448-54.
2. Wang HS, Pisegna J, Modi R. et al. Adenoma detection rate is necessary but insuffi cient for distinguishing high versus low endoscopist performance. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 71-8.
3. Jover R, Zapater P, Polania E. et al. Modifi able endoscopic factors that infl uence the adenoma detection rate in colorectal cancer screening colonoscopies. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 381-9. e1.
4. Greenspan M, Rajan KB, Baig A. et al. Advanced adenoma detection rate is independent of nonadvanced adenoma detection rate. Am J Gastroenterol 2013; 108: 1286-92.
5. Do A, Weinberg J, Kakkar A. et al. Reliability of adenoma detection rate is based on procedural volume. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 376-80.
6. Coe SG, Wallace MB. Assessment of adenoma detection rate benchmarks in women versus men. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 631-5.
7. Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med 2010; 362: 1795-803.
8. Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR. et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 1298-306.
9. Ausk K, Dominitz JA. Association of adenoma detection rate with the risk of interval cancer. Gastroenterology 2011; 140: 724-6.
10. Radaelli F, Paggi S, Bortoli A. et al. Overutilization of post-polypectomy surveillance colonoscopy in clinical practice: a prospective, multicentre study. Dig Liver Dis 2012; 44: 748-53.
11. Schoen RE, Pinsky PF, Weissfeld JL. et al. Utilization of surveillance colonoscopy in community practice. Gastroenterology 2010; 138: 73-81.
12. Imler TD, Morea J, Imperiale TF. Clinical decision support with natural language processing facilitates determination of colonoscopy surveillance intervals. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013; 12: 1130-6.
13. Hou JK, Imler TD, Imperiale TF. Current and future applications of natural language processing in the fi eld of digestive diseases. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014; 12: 1257-61.
14. Plumb RK. Russain is turned into English by a fast electronic translator New York Times: 1954.
15. Murff HJ, FitzHenry F, Matheny ME. et al. Automated identifi cation of postoperative complications within an electronic medical record using natural language processing. JAMA 2011; 306: 848-55.
16. Vo E, Davila JA, Hou J. et al. Diff erentiation of ileostomy from colostomy procedures: assessing the accuracy of current procedural terminology codes and the utility of natural language processing. Surgery 2013; 154: 411-7.
17. Sada Y, Hou J, Richardson P. et al. Validation of case fi nding algorithms for hepatocellular cancer from administrative data and electronic health records using natural language processing. Med Care 2013; http: //www. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23929403.
18. Dutta S, Long WJ, Brown DF. et al. Automated detection using natural language processing of radiologists recommendations for additional imaging of incidental fi ndings. Ann Emerg Med 2013; 62: 162-9.
19. Elkin PL, Froehling DA, Wahner-Roedler DL. et al. Comparison of natural language processing biosurveillance methods for identifying infl uenza from encounter notes. Ann Intern Med 2012; 156: 11-18.
20. Webb KH. Natural language processing and electronic medical records. JAMA 2011; 306: 2325-author reply 2325-6.
21. Liu M, Shah A, Jiang M. et al. A study of transportability of an existing smoking status detection module across institutions. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2012; 2012: 577-86.
22. Imler TD, Morea J, Kahi C. et al. Natural language processing accurately categorizes fi ndings from colonoscopy and pathology reports. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013; 11: 689-94.
23. Hou JK, Chang M, Nguyen T. et al. Automated identifi cation of surveillance colonoscopy in infl ammatory bowel disease using natural language processing. Dig Dis Sci 2013; 58: 936-41.
24. Denny JC, Choma NN, Peterson JF. et al. Natural language processing improves identifi cation of colorectal cancer testing in the electronic medical record. Med Decis Making 2012; 32: 188-97.
25. Harkema H, Chapman WW, Saul M. et al. Developing a natural language processing application for measuring the quality of colonoscopy procedures. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2011; 18 ( Suppl 1 ): i150-i156.
26. Denny JC, Peterson JF, Choma NN. et al. Extracting timing and status descriptors for colonoscopy testing from electronic medical records. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2010; 17: 383-8.
27. Gawron AJ, Th ompson WK, Keswani RN. et al. Anatomic and Advanced Adenoma Detection Rates as Quality Metrics Determined via Natural Language Processing. Am J Gastroenterol 2014; 109: 1844-9.
28. Maynard C, Chapko MK. Data resources in the Department of Veterans Aff airs. Diabetes Care 2004; 27 ( Suppl 2 ): B22-B26.
29. Savova GK, Masanz JJ, Ogren PV. et al. Mayo clinical Text Analysis and Knowledge Extraction System (cTAKES): architecture, component evaluation and applications. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2010; 17: 507-13.
30. Lindberg C the Unifi ed Medical Language System (UMLS) of the National Library of Medicine. J Am Med Rec Assoc 1990; 61: 40-2.
31. Lieberman DA, Rex DK, Winawer SJ. et al. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance aft er screening and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology 2012; 143: 844-57.
32. Rex DK, Ahnen DJ, Baron JA. et al. Serrated lesions of the colorectum: review and recommendations from an expert panel. Am J Gastroenterol 2012; 107: 1315-29. quiz 1314, 1330.
33. McCarthy WF. Adjustment to the McNemar's Test for the Analysis of Clustered Matched-Pair Data Volume Working Paper 29 Maryland Medical Research Institute: 2007.
34. Mehrotra A, Dellon ES, Schoen RE. et al. Applying a natural language processing tool to electronic health records to assess performance on colonoscopy quality measures. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 1233-9. e14
35. Kahi CJ, Ballard D, Shah AS. et al. Impact of a quarterly report card on colonoscopy quality measures. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 925-31.
36. Aff airs UDoV 2014.
37. Regenstrief Institute L. Health Information Exchange. Volume 2014 2014.
38. Sherer EA, Imler TD, Imperiale TF the effect of colonoscopy preparation quality on adenoma detection rates. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 545-53.
39. Shergill A. 2014.