Table 1.
Table 1 Summary of Analyses
| Analysis 1 | Analysis 2 | Analysis 3 | Analysis 4 | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CDO Version (year) | Version 1 (2000) | Version 2 (2005) | version 2 (2005) | version 3 (2007) | ||||||||||
| Number of documents | n = 894 notes and reports | n = 163 notes | n = 94 nursing notes | n = 935 notes and reports | ||||||||||
| Fully-specified documents | 23.4% | - | 74.5% | 98.5% | ||||||||||
| Uniquely specified documents | 7.9% | - | 33% | 39.1% | ||||||||||
| % Specified with CDO Axis Value | % Specified with Other as Axis Value | % Not Specified | IRR Kappa (prob > Z) | % Specified with CDO Axis Value | % Specified with Other as Axis Value | % Not Specified | % Specified with CDO Axis Value | % Specified with Other as Axis Value | % Not Specified | % Specified with CDO Axis Value | % Specified with Other as Axis Value | % Not Specified | IRR Kappa (prob > Z) | |
| Subject matter domain | 26.7 | 73.3 | 10.7 | 0.65 (0.0000) a ; 82.5% agreement b† | 100 | 0 | 55.8 | 74 | 26 | 29 | 98.6 | 1.4 | 5.8 | 0.85 (0.0000)c |
| Professional level | 99.9 | 0.1 | 90.8 | 0.97 (0.0000) a ; 100% agreement b† | - | - | - | 100 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 85.7 | 0.96 (0.0000)c | |
| Setting | 99.9 | 0.1 | 90.2 | 0.97 (0.0000) a ; 100% agreement b† | - | - | - | 100 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 0 | 86.4 | 0.89 (0.0000)c |
| Type of Service | 43.5 | 56.5 | 3.9 | 0.82 (0.0000) a ; 0.72 (0.0000) b | - | - | - | 100 | 0 | 4 | 99.9 | 0.1 | 18.2 | 0.57 (0.0000)c |
| Kind of document | 100 | 0 | 0.1 | 0.75 (0.0000) a ; 100% agreement b† | - | - | - | 100 | 0 | 0 | 99.1 | 0.9 | 0.1 | 0.96 (0.0000)c |
† Unable to calculate kappa;
a Between Sookyung Hyun and Cara Schlegel;
b Between Suzanne Bakken and Genevieve Melton; cbetween Suzanne Bakken and Sookyung Hyun; Value list for Kind of Document is under development. 9
CDO = clinical document oncology.
Note