Cargando…

Current approaches to identify sections within clinical narratives from electronic health records: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: The identification of sections in narrative content of Electronic Health Records (EHR) has demonstrated to improve the performance of clinical extraction tasks; however, there is not yet a shared understanding of the concept and its existing methods. The objective is to report the result...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pomares-Quimbaya, Alexandra, Kreuzthaler, Markus, Schulz, Stefan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6637496/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31319802
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0792-y
_version_ 1783436251069677568
author Pomares-Quimbaya, Alexandra
Kreuzthaler, Markus
Schulz, Stefan
author_facet Pomares-Quimbaya, Alexandra
Kreuzthaler, Markus
Schulz, Stefan
author_sort Pomares-Quimbaya, Alexandra
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The identification of sections in narrative content of Electronic Health Records (EHR) has demonstrated to improve the performance of clinical extraction tasks; however, there is not yet a shared understanding of the concept and its existing methods. The objective is to report the results of a systematic review concerning approaches aimed at identifying sections in narrative content of EHR, using both automatic or semi-automatic methods. METHODS: This review includes articles from the databases: SCOPUS, Web of Science and PubMed (from January 1994 to September 2018). The selection of studies was done using predefined eligibility criteria and applying the PRISMA recommendations. Search criteria were elaborated by using an iterative and collaborative keyword enrichment. RESULTS: Following the eligibility criteria, 39 studies were selected for analysis. The section identification approaches proposed by these studies vary greatly depending on the kind of narrative, the type of section, and the application. We observed that 57% of them proposed formal methods for identifying sections and 43% adapted a previously created method. Seventy-eight percent were intended for English texts and 41% for discharge summaries. Studies that are able to identify explicit (with headings) and implicit sections correspond to 46%. Regarding the level of granularity, 54% of the studies are able to identify sections, but not subsections. From the technical point of view, the methods can be classified into rule-based methods (59%), machine learning methods (22%) and a combination of both (19%). Hybrid methods showed better results than those relying on pure machine learning approaches, but lower than rule-based methods; however, their scope was more ambitious than the latter ones. Despite all the promising performance results, very few studies reported tests under a formal setup. Almost all the studies relied on custom dictionaries; however, they used them in conjunction with a controlled terminology, most commonly the UMLSⓇ metathesaurus. CONCLUSIONS: Identification of sections in EHR narratives is gaining popularity for improving clinical extraction projects. This study enabled the community working on clinical NLP to gain a formal analysis of this task, including the most successful ways to perform it.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6637496
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-66374962019-07-25 Current approaches to identify sections within clinical narratives from electronic health records: a systematic review Pomares-Quimbaya, Alexandra Kreuzthaler, Markus Schulz, Stefan BMC Med Res Methodol Research Article BACKGROUND: The identification of sections in narrative content of Electronic Health Records (EHR) has demonstrated to improve the performance of clinical extraction tasks; however, there is not yet a shared understanding of the concept and its existing methods. The objective is to report the results of a systematic review concerning approaches aimed at identifying sections in narrative content of EHR, using both automatic or semi-automatic methods. METHODS: This review includes articles from the databases: SCOPUS, Web of Science and PubMed (from January 1994 to September 2018). The selection of studies was done using predefined eligibility criteria and applying the PRISMA recommendations. Search criteria were elaborated by using an iterative and collaborative keyword enrichment. RESULTS: Following the eligibility criteria, 39 studies were selected for analysis. The section identification approaches proposed by these studies vary greatly depending on the kind of narrative, the type of section, and the application. We observed that 57% of them proposed formal methods for identifying sections and 43% adapted a previously created method. Seventy-eight percent were intended for English texts and 41% for discharge summaries. Studies that are able to identify explicit (with headings) and implicit sections correspond to 46%. Regarding the level of granularity, 54% of the studies are able to identify sections, but not subsections. From the technical point of view, the methods can be classified into rule-based methods (59%), machine learning methods (22%) and a combination of both (19%). Hybrid methods showed better results than those relying on pure machine learning approaches, but lower than rule-based methods; however, their scope was more ambitious than the latter ones. Despite all the promising performance results, very few studies reported tests under a formal setup. Almost all the studies relied on custom dictionaries; however, they used them in conjunction with a controlled terminology, most commonly the UMLSⓇ metathesaurus. CONCLUSIONS: Identification of sections in EHR narratives is gaining popularity for improving clinical extraction projects. This study enabled the community working on clinical NLP to gain a formal analysis of this task, including the most successful ways to perform it. BioMed Central 2019-07-18 /pmc/articles/PMC6637496/ /pubmed/31319802 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0792-y Text en © The Author(s) 2019 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Pomares-Quimbaya, Alexandra
Kreuzthaler, Markus
Schulz, Stefan
Current approaches to identify sections within clinical narratives from electronic health records: a systematic review
title Current approaches to identify sections within clinical narratives from electronic health records: a systematic review
title_full Current approaches to identify sections within clinical narratives from electronic health records: a systematic review
title_fullStr Current approaches to identify sections within clinical narratives from electronic health records: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Current approaches to identify sections within clinical narratives from electronic health records: a systematic review
title_short Current approaches to identify sections within clinical narratives from electronic health records: a systematic review
title_sort current approaches to identify sections within clinical narratives from electronic health records: a systematic review
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6637496/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31319802
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0792-y
work_keys_str_mv AT pomaresquimbayaalexandra currentapproachestoidentifysectionswithinclinicalnarrativesfromelectronichealthrecordsasystematicreview
AT kreuzthalermarkus currentapproachestoidentifysectionswithinclinicalnarrativesfromelectronichealthrecordsasystematicreview
AT schulzstefan currentapproachestoidentifysectionswithinclinicalnarrativesfromelectronichealthrecordsasystematicreview