Reliability of medical record abstraction by non-physicians for orthopedic research

Michael Mi · Jamie E. Collins · Vladislav Lerner · Elena Losina · Jeffrey Neil Katz

14 citations0/0 files storedBMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Reliability and Agreement in Measurement Total Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes Medical Coding and Health Information

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Medical record review (MRR) is one of the most commonly used research methods in clinical studies because it provides rich clinical detail. However, because MRR involves subjective interpretation of information found in the medical record, it is critically important to understand the reproducibility of data obtained from MRR. Furthermore, because medical record review is both technically demanding and time intensive, it is important to establish whether trained research staff with no clinical training can abstract medical records reliably. METHODS: We assessed the reliability of abstraction of medical record information in a sample of patients who underwent total knee replacement (TKR) at a referral center. An orthopedic surgeon instructed two research coordinators (RCs) in the abstraction of inpatient medical records and operative notes for patients undergoing primary TKR. The two RCs and the surgeon each independently reviewed 75 patients' records and one RC reviewed the records twice. Agreement was assessed using the proportion of items on which reviewers agreed and the kappa statistic. RESULTS: The kappa for agreement between the surgeon and each RC ranged from 0.59 to 1 for one RC and 0.49 to 1 for the other; the percent agreement ranged from 82% to 100% for one RC and 70% to 100% for the other. The repeated abstractions by the same RC showed high intra-rater agreement, with kappas ranging from 0.66 to 1 and percent agreement ranging from 97% to 100%. Inter-rater agreement between the two RCs was moderate with kappa ranging from 0.49 to 1 and percent agreement ranging from 76% to 100%. CONCLUSION: The MRR method used in this study showed excellent reliability for abstraction of information that had low technical complexity and moderate to good reliability for information that had greater complexity. Overall, these findings support the use of non-surgeons to abstract surgical data from operative notes.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 14 citations exist upstream.

References

1977The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data 1960A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales 1999Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement 1990High agreement but low Kappa: I. the problems of two paradoxes 1990High agreement but low kappa: II. Resolving the paradoxes 1969Large sample standard errors of kappa and weighted kappa.2009Toward Robust Information: Data Quality and Inter-Rater Reliability in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program 1996Chart Reviews In Emergency Medicine Research: Where Are The Methods?

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.