Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23514203›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2013

Evaluation of data completeness in the electronic health record for the purpose of patient recruitment into clinical trials: a retrospective analysis of element presence.

Felix Köpcke, Benjamin Trinczek, Raphael W Majeed, Björn Schreiweis, Joachim Wenk, Thomas Leusch, Thomas Ganslandt, Christian Ohmann, Björn Bergh, Rainer Röhrig and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

51 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 106 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Predicting Missing Values in Medical Data via XGBoost Regression.Journal of healthcare informatics research · 2020
    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

12 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Felix KöpckeLehrstuhl für Medizinische Informatik, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Krankenhausstraße 12, Erlangen, 91054, Germany. felix.koepcke@imi.med.uni-erlangen.de
Benjamin Trinczek
Raphael W Majeed
Björn Schreiweis
Joachim Wenk
Thomas Leusch
Thomas Ganslandt
Christian Ohmann
Björn Bergh
Rainer Röhrig
Martin Dugas
Hans-Ulrich Prokosch
Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf · DEDeutsche Gesellschaft für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin · DEFriedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg · DEHeidelberg University · DEUniversity of Münster · DEUniversitätsklinikum Erlangen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundComputerized clinical trial recruitment support is one promising field for the application of routine care data for clinical research. The primary task here is to compare the eligibility criteria defined in trial protocols with patient data contained in the electronic health record (EHR). To avoid the implementation of different patient definitions in multi-site trials, all participating research sites should use similar patient data from the EHR. Knowledge of the EHR data elements which are commonly available from most EHRs is required to be able to define a common set of criteria. The objective of this research is to determine for five tertiary care providers the extent of available data compared with the eligibility criteria of randomly selected clinical trials.

methodsEach participating study site selected three clinical trials at random. All eligibility criteria sentences were broken up into independent patient characteristics, which were then assigned to one of the 27 semantic categories for eligibility criteria developed by Luo et al. We report on the fraction of patient characteristics with corresponding structured data elements in the EHR and on the fraction of patients with available data for these elements. The completeness of EHR data for the purpose of patient recruitment is calculated for each semantic group.

results351 eligibility criteria from 15 clinical trials contained 706 patient characteristics. In average, 55% of these characteristics could be documented in the EHR. Clinical data was available for 64% of all patients, if corresponding data elements were available. The total completeness of EHR data for recruitment purposes is 35%. The best performing semantic groups were 'age' (89%), 'gender' (89%), 'addictive behaviour' (74%), 'disease, symptom and sign' (64%) and 'organ or tissue status' (61%). No data was available for 6 semantic groups.

conclusionsThere exists a significant gap in structure and content between data documented during patient care and data required for patient eligibility assessment. Nevertheless, EHR data on age and gender of the patient, as well as selected information on his disease can be complete enough to allow for an effective support of the manual screening process with an intelligent preselection of patients and patient data.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicPatient SelectionElectronic Health RecordsHumansRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID23514203
PMCPMC3606452
OpenAlexW1995899261

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.