Search

Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Objective: To identify and support correction of misspelled medication names recorded as free text, we compared the relative effectiveness of two user-friendly methods, used without reliance on clinical knowledge., Methods: Leveraging the SAS® COMPGED function, fuzzy string search programs examined 1.8 million medication records from 183,600 World Trade Center General Responder Cohort monitoring visits conducted in New York and New Jersey between 7/16/2002 and 3/31/2021, producing replicable generalized edit distance scores between the reported and correct spelling. Scores < 120 were selected as optimal and compared to Stedman's 2020 Plus Medical/Pharmaceutical Spell Checker first suggested word, used as the comparative standard because it employs both spelling and phonetic similarities to suggest matching words. We coded each methods' results as identifying or not identifying the medications within each visit., Results: Most types of medications (94.4 % anxiety, 98.4 % asthma and 94.6 % ulcer/gastroesophageal reflux disease) were correctly spelled. Cross tabulations assessed the agreement (anxiety 99.9 %, asthma 99.6 % and 98.4 % ulcer/ gastroesophageal reflux disease), false positive (respectively 0.02 %, 0.03 % and 2.0 %) and false negative (respectively 1.9 %, 0.5 % and 1.0 %) values. Scores < 120 occasionally correctly identified medications missed by the spell checker. We observed no difference in medication misspellings across socio-economically and culturally diverse patient characteristics., Conclusions: Both methods efficiently identified most misspelled medications, greatly minimizing the review and rectification needed. The fuzzy method is more universally applicable for condition-specific medications identification, but requires more programming skills. The spell checker is inexpensive, but benefits from modest programming skills and is only available in some languages., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2024 The Authors.)

Background: The World Trade Center (WTC) general responder cohort (GRC) was exposed to environmental toxins possibly associated with increased risk of developing autoimmune conditions., Objectives: Two study designs were used to assess incidence and risks of autoimmune conditions in the GRC., Methods: Three clinically trained professionals established the status of possible GRC cases of autoimmune disorders adhering to diagnostic criteria, supplemented, as needed, by specialists' review of consenting responders' medical records. Nested case-control analyses using conditional logistic regression estimated the risk associated with high WTC exposure (being in the 9/11/2001 dust cloud or ≥median days' response worked) compared with low WTC exposure (all other GRC members'). Four controls were matched to each case on age at case diagnosis (±2 years), sex, race/ethnicity, and year of program enrollment. Sex-specific and sensitivity analyses were performed. GRC age- and sex-adjusted standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) were compared with the Rochester Epidemiology Project (REP). Complete REP inpatient and outpatient medical records were reviewed by specialists. Conditions meeting standardized criteria on ≥2 visits were classified as REP confirmed cases., Results: Six hundred and twenty-eight responders were diagnosed with autoimmune conditions between 2002 and 2017. In the nested case-control analyses, high WTC exposure was not associated with autoimmune domains and conditions (rheumatologic domain odds ratio [OR] = 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.77, 1.37; rheumatoid arthritis OR = 1.12, 95% CI = 0.70, 1.77). GRC members had lower SIR than REP. Women's risks were generally greater than men's., Conclusions: The study found no statistically significant increased risk of autoimmune conditions with WTC exposures., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)