English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Diagnostic errors in medicine represent a significant public health problem but continue to be challenging to measure accurately, reliably, and efficiently. The recently developed Symptom-Disease Pair Analysis of Diagnostic Error (SPADE) approach measures misdiagnosis related harms using electronic health records or administrative claims data. The approach is clinically valid, methodologically sound, statistically robust, and operationally viable without the requirement for manual chart review. This paper clarifies aspects of the SPADE analysis to assure that researchers apply this method to yield valid results with a particular emphasis on defining appropriate comparator groups and analytical strategies for balancing differences between these groups. We discuss four distinct types of comparators (intra-group and inter-group for both look-back and look-forward analyses), detailing the rationale for choosing one over the other and inferences that can be drawn from these comparative analyses. Our aim is that these additional analytical practices will improve the validity of SPADE and related approaches to quantify diagnostic error in medicine.

diagnosis

Optimizing measurement of misdiagnosis-related harms using symptom-disease pair analysis of diagnostic error (SPADE): comparison groups to maximize SPADE validity