SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2003
Systematic review of scope and quality of electronic patient record data in primary care.
Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 106 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
106 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Impact of electronic medical record on physician practice in office settings: a systematic review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2012Pooled it
- The impact of eHealth on the quality and safety of health care: a systematic overview.PLoS medicine · 2011Pooled it
- Validity of diagnostic coding within the General Practice Research Database: a systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2010Pooled it
- The effect of feedback to general practitioners on quality of care for people with type 2 diabetes. A systematic review of the literature.BMC family practice · 2009Pooled it
- Trial
- An interactive workshop plus locally adapted guidelines can improve general practitioners asthma management and knowledge: a cluster randomised trial in the Australian setting.BMC family practice · 2008Trial
- Quality of Cancer-Related Clinical Coding in Primary Care in North Central London: Mixed Methods Quality Improvement Project.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Assessing the capture of sociodemographic information in electronic medical records to inform clinical decision making.PloS one · 2025Article
- Research data warehouse: using electronic health records to conduct population-based observational studies.JAMIA open · 2023Article
- Analysis of the quality of prenatal data of pregnant women attended at Healthcare Services in the city of São Paulo between 2012 and 2020.Revista brasileira de epidemiologia = Brazilian journal of epidemiology · 2023Article
- Medical conditions associated with coffee consumption: Disease-trajectory and comorbidity network analyses of a prospective cohort study in UK Biobank.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2022Article
- Improving usability of Electronic Health Records in a UK Mental Health setting: a feasibility study.Journal of medical systems · 2022Article
- Blockchain-Based Architecture Design for Personal Health Record: Development and Usability Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Establishing Trust in Pharmaceutical Data with an Independent Verification and Validation Methodology.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2022Article
- COVID-19 and risk of subsequent life-threatening secondary infections: a matched cohort study in UK Biobank.BMC medicine · 2021Article
- Using Electronic Medical Records to Identify Potentially Eligible Study Subjects for Lung Cancer Screening with Biomarkers.Cancers · 2021Article
- Pregnancies among women living with HIV using contraceptives and antiretroviral therapy in western Kenya: a retrospective, cohort study.BMC medicine · 2021Article
- Risk of UTI in kidney stone formers: a matched-cohort study over a median follow-up of 19 years.World journal of urology · 2021Article
46 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo systematically review measures of data quality in electronic patient records (EPRs) in primary care.
designSystematic review of English language publications, 1980-2001. DATA SOURCES: Bibliographic searches of medical databases, specialist medical informatics databases, conference proceedings, and institutional contacts. STUDY SELECTION: Studies selected according to a predefined framework for categorising review papers. DATA EXTRACTION: Reference standards and measurements used to judge quality.
resultsBibliographic searches identified 4589 publications. After primary exclusions 174 articles were classified, 52 of which met the inclusion criteria for review. Selected studies were primarily descriptive surveys. Variability in methods prevented meta-analysis of results. Forty eight publications were concerned with diagnostic data, 37 studies measured data quality, and 15 scoped EPR quality. Reliability of data was assessed with rate comparison. Measures of sensitivity were highly dependent on the element of EPR data being investigated, while the positive predictive value was consistently high, indicating good validity. Prescribing data were generally of better quality than diagnostic or lifestyle data.
conclusionThe lack of standardised methods for assessment of quality of data in electronic patient records makes it difficult to compare results between studies. Studies should present data quality measures with clear numerators, denominators, and confidence intervals. Ambiguous terms such as "accuracy" should be avoided unless precisely defined.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.