Show simple item record

The Accuracy and Completeness of Data Collected by Prospective and Retrospective Methods

dc.contributor.authorNagurney, J. Tobiasen_US
dc.contributor.authorBrown, David F. M.en_US
dc.contributor.authorSane, Swatien_US
dc.contributor.authorWeiner, Justin B.en_US
dc.contributor.authorWang, Andrew C.en_US
dc.contributor.authorChang, Yuchiaoen_US
dc.date.accessioned2010-06-01T22:17:47Z
dc.date.available2010-06-01T22:17:47Z
dc.date.issued2005-09en_US
dc.identifier.citationNagurney, J. Tobias; Brown, David F.M.; Sane, Swati; Weiner, Justin B.; Wang, Andrew C.; Chang, Yuchiao (2005). "The Accuracy and Completeness of Data Collected by Prospective and Retrospective Methods." Academic Emergency Medicine 12(9): 884-895. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/75308>en_US
dc.identifier.issn1069-6563en_US
dc.identifier.issn1553-2712en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/75308
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=16141025&dopt=citationen_US
dc.description.abstract: Objectives: To describe and test a model that compares the accuracy of data gathered prospectively versus retrospectively among adult emergency department patients admitted with chest pain. Methods: The authors developed a model of information flow from subject to medical record to the clinical study case report form, based on a literature review. To test this model, a bidirectional (prospective and retrospective) study was conducted, enrolling all eligible adult patients who were admitted with a chief complaint of chest pain. The authors interviewed patients in the emergency department to determine their chest pain history and established a prospective database; this was considered the criterion standard. Then, patient medical records were reviewed to determine the accuracy and completeness of the information available through a retrospective medical record review. Results: The model described applies the concepts of reliability and validity to information passed on by the study subject, the clinician, and the medical record abstractor. This study was comprised of 104 subjects, of which 63% were men and the median age was 63 years. Subjects were uncertain of responses for 0–8% of questions and responded differently upon reinterview for subsets of questions 0–30% of the time. The sensitivity of the medical record for risk factors for coronary artery disease was 0.77 to 0.93. Among the 88 subjects (85%) who indicated that their chest pain was substernal or left chest, the medical record described this location in 44%. Timing of the chest pain was the most difficult item to accurately capture from the medical record. Conclusions: Information obtained retrospectively from the abstraction of medical records is measurably less accurate than information obtained prospectively from research subjects. For certain items, more than half of the information is not available. This loss of information is related to the data types included in the study and by the assumptions that a researcher performing a retrospective study makes about implied versus explicitly stated responses. A model of information flow that incorporates the concepts of reliability and validity can be used to measure some of the loss of information that occurs at each step along the way from subject to clinician to medical record abstractor.en_US
dc.format.extent145378 bytes
dc.format.extent3109 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.publisherBlackwell Publishing Ltden_US
dc.rights© 2005 Society for Academic Emergency Medicineen_US
dc.subject.otherData Collectionen_US
dc.subject.otherRetrospectiveen_US
dc.subject.otherProspectiveen_US
dc.subject.otherBiasen_US
dc.subject.otherPrecisionen_US
dc.subject.otherMethodologyen_US
dc.subject.otherMyocardial Infarctionen_US
dc.titleThe Accuracy and Completeness of Data Collected by Prospective and Retrospective Methodsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelMedicine (General)en_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumUniversity of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, MIen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MAen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Medicine, General Medicine Division, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MAen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDivision of Emergency Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MAen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherPrinceton University, Princeton, NJen_US
dc.identifier.pmid16141025en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/75308/1/j.aem.2005.04.021.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1197/j.aem.2005.04.021en_US
dc.identifier.sourceAcademic Emergency Medicineen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSartwell PE. Retrospective studies. A review for the clinician. Ann Intern Med. 1974; 81: 381 – 6.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSinger AJ, Homan CS, Stark MJ, Werblud MC, Thode HC, Hollander JE. Comparison of types of research articles published in emergency medicine and non-emergency medicine journals. Acad Emerg Med. 1997; 4: 1153 – 8.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSchwartz RJ, Panacek EA. Basics of research (part 7): archival data research. Air Med J. 1996; 15: 119 – 24.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGilbert EH, Lowenstein SR, Koziol-McLain J, Barta DC Steiner J. Chart reviews in emergency medicine research: where are the methods? Ann Emerg Med. 1996; 27: 305 – 8.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHorwitz RI, Yu EC. Assessing the reliability of epidemiologic data obtained from medical records. J Chronic Dis. 1984; 37: 825 – 31.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSackett DL. Bias in analytic research. J Chronic Dis. 1979; 32: 51 – 63.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKarras DJ. Statistical methodology: II. Reliability and validity assessment in study design, part B. Acad Emerg Med. 1997; 4: 144 – 7.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFeinstein AR Clinical Epidemiology: The Architecture of Clinical Research. ed 1 Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders, 1985.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNunnally JC. Psychometric Theory. Volume 2. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc, 1978.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBosetti C, Tavani A, Negri E, Trichopoulos D, La Vecchia C. Reliability of data on medical conditions, menstrual and reproductive history provided by hospital controls. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001; 54: 902 – 6.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLimkakeng A, Gibler WB Pollack C, et al. Combination of Goldman risk and initial cardiac troponin I for emergency department chest pain patient risk stratification. Acad Emerg Med. 2001; 8: 696 – 702.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePaul SD, O'Gara PT Mahjoub ZA, et al. Geriatric patients with acute myocardial infarction: Cardiac risk factor profiles, presentation, thrombolysis, coronary interventions, and prognosis. Am Heart J. 1996; 131: 710 – 5.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWalker NJ, Sites FD, Shofer FS, Hollander JE. Characteristics and outcomes of young adults who present to the emergency department with chest pain. Acad Emerg Med. 2001; 8: 703 – 8.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHollander JE, Brooks DE Valentine SM. Assessment of cocaine use in patients with chest pain syndromes. Arch Intern Med. 1998; 158: 62 – 6.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWald D, Lamden R Curtis M. Written documentation of the chest pain history by fourth-year medical students using a simulated emergency department patient encounter. Acad Emerg Med. 2004; 11: 500 – 1.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAday LA. Designing and Conducting Health Surveys. Volume 1. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc, 1989.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMcDowell I, Newell C Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires., ed 2 New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1996.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTourangeau R, Rips LJ, Rasinski K. The Psychology of Survey Response. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2000.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJudd C, Smith ER, Kidder LH Research Methods in Social Relations., ed 6 Austin, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc, 1991.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRothman K, Greenland S Modern Epidemiology., ed 2 Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 1998.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCummings P, Koepsell TD Weiss NS. Studying injuries with case-control methods in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 1998; 31: 99 – 105.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKothari R, Jauch E Broderick J, et al. Acute stroke: delays to presentation and emergency department evaluation. Ann Emerg Med. 1999; 33: 3 – 8.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEvenson KR, Rosamond WD, Vallee JA, Morris DL. Concordance of stroke symptom onset time. The Second Delay in Accessing Stroke Healthcare (DASH II) Study. Ann Epidemiol. 2001; 11: 202 – 7.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLuck J, Peabody JW, Dresselhaus TR, Lee M, Glassman P. How well does chart abstraction measure quality? A prospective comparison of standardized patients with the medical record. Am J Med. 2000; 108: 642 – 9.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePeabody JW, Luck J, Glassman P, Dresselhaus TR, Lee M. Comparison of vignettes, standardized patients, and chart abstraction: a prospective validation study of 3 methods for measuring quality. JAMA. 2000; 283: 1715 – 22.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHarlow SD, Linet MS. Agreement between questionnaire data and medical records. The evidence for accuracy of recall. Am J Epidemiol. 1989; 129: 233 – 48.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePaganini-Hill A, Chao A. Accuracy of recall of hip fracture, heart attack, and cancer: a comparison of postal survey data and medical records. Am J Epidemiol. 1993; 138: 101 – 6.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePaganini-Hill A, Ross RK. Reliability of recall of drug usage and other health-related information. Am J Epidemiol. 1982; 116: 114 – 22.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceColditz GA, Martin P Stampfer MJ, et al. Validation of questionnaire information on risk factors and disease outcomes in a prospective cohort study of women. Am J Epidemiol. 1986; 123: 894 – 900.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePsaty BM, Kuller LH Bild D, et al. Methods of assessing prevalent cardiovascular disease in the Cardiovascular Health Study. Ann Epidemiol. 1995; 5: 270 – 7.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKee F, Tiret L Robo JY, et al. Reliability of reported family history of myocardial infarction. BMJ. 1993; 307: 1528 – 30.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFonseca SS, Victora CG, Halpern R, Lima R, Barros FC. Comparison of two methods for assessing injuries among preschool children. Inj Prev. 2002; 8: 79 – 82.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCoughlin SS. Recall bias in epidemiologic studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990; 43: 87 – 91.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHorwitz RI. Comparison of epidemiologic data from multiple sources. J Chronic Dis. 1986; 39: 889 – 96.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLinet MS, Harlow SD, McLaughlin JK, McCaffrey LD. A comparison of interview data and medical records for previous medical conditions and surgery. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989; 42: 1207 – 13.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKip KE, Cohen F Cole SR, et al. Recall bias in a prospective cohort study of acute time-varying exposures: example from the herpetic eye disease study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001; 54: 482 – 7.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBrittingham A, Tourangeau R Kay W. Reports of smoking in a national survey: data from screening and detailed interviews, and from self- and interviewer-administered questions. Ann Epidemiol. 1998; 8: 393 – 401.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceOkamoto K, Ohsuka K, Shiraishi T, Hukazawa E, Wakasugi S, Furuta K. Comparability of epidemiological information between self- and interviewer-administered questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002; 55: 505 – 11.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWorster A, Bledsoe RD, Cleve P, Eva K. Reassessing the methods of medical record review (mrr) studies in emergency medicine research ten years later [abstract]. Acad Emerg Med. 2004; 11: 467.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePanacek EA. Basics of research (part 9): practical aspects of performing clinical research. Air Med J. 1997; 16: 19 – 23.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.