Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22583552›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2012

Measuring data reliability for preventive services in electronic medical records.

Michelle Greiver, Jan Barnsley, Richard H Glazier, Bart J Harvey, Rahim Moineddin

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. A cohort study of engagement in telehealth psychotherapy versus in-person services.Psychotherapy research : journal of the Society for Psychotherapy Research · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Reliability of trauma coding with ICD-10.Chinese journal of traumatology = Zhonghua chuang shang za zhi · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Improving the quality of EHR recording in primary care: a data quality feedback tool.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2017
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Michelle GreiverDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Duncan Mill Road, Suite 705, Toronto, ON, Canada. mgreiver@rogers.com
Jan Barnsley
Richard H Glazier
Bart J Harvey
Rahim Moineddin

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImprovements in the quality of health care services are often measured using data present in medical records. Electronic Medical Records (EMRs) contain potentially valuable new sources of health data. However, data quality in EMRs may not be optimal and should be assessed. Data reliability (are the same data elements being measured over time?) is a prerequisite for data validity (are the data accurate?). Our objective was to measure the reliability of data for preventive services in primary care EMRs during the transition to EMR.

methodsOur data sources were randomly selected eligible patients' medical records and data obtained from provincial administrative datasets. Eighteen community-based family physicians in Toronto, Ontario that implemented EMRs starting in 2006 participated in this study. We measured the proportion of patients eligible for a service (Pap smear, screening mammogram or influenza vaccination) that received the service. We compared the change in rates of selected preventive services calculated from the medical record audits with the change in administrative datasets.

resultsIn the first year of EMR use (2006) services decreased by 8.7% more (95% CI -11.0%- - 6.4%, p < 0.0001) when measured through medical record audits as compared with administrative datasets. Services increased by 2.4% more (95% CI 0%-4.9%, p = 0.05) in the medical record audits during the second year of EMR use (2007).

conclusionThere were differences between the change measured through medical record audits and administrative datasets. Problems could include difficulties with organizing new data entry processes as well as continued use of both paper and EMRs. Data extracted from EMRs had limited reliability during the initial phase of EMR implementation. Unreliable data interferes with the ability to measure and improve health care quality.

Indexed as

Quality Indicators, Health CareAdultChronic DiseaseComorbidityDatabases, FactualDiagnosis-Related GroupsDiagnostic Tests, RoutineElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHealth Services ResearchHumansMedical AuditMedical RecordsMiddle AgedOntarioPhysicians, Family

Identifiers

PMID22583552
PMCPMC3442990

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.