Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28453637›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2017

Automated identification of implausible values in growth data from pediatric electronic health records.

Carrie Daymont, Michelle E Ross, A Russell Localio, Alexander G Fiks, Richard C Wasserman, Robert W Grundmeier

Erratum issuedAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 82 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
82citing 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

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

  1. Electronic health record data quality assessment and tools: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

22 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Carrie DaymontDepartments of Pediatrics and Public Health Sciences, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, PA, USA.
Michelle E RossDepartment of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
A Russell LocalioDepartment of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Alexander G FiksDepartment of Biomedical and Health Informatics.
Richard C WassermanPediatric Research in Office Settings, American Academy of Pediatrics, Elk Grove, IL, USA.
Robert W GrundmeierDepartment of Biomedical and Health Informatics.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveLarge electronic health record (EHR) datasets are increasingly used to facilitate research on growth, but measurement and recording errors can lead to biased results. We developed and tested an automated method for identifying implausible values in pediatric EHR growth data. MATERIALS AND

methodsUsing deidentified data from 46 primary care sites, we developed an algorithm to identify weight and height values that should be excluded from analysis, including implausible values and values that were recorded repeatedly without remeasurement. The foundation of the algorithm is a comparison of each measurement, expressed as a standard deviation score, with a weighted moving average of a child's other measurements. We evaluated the performance of the algorithm by (1) comparing its results with the judgment of physician reviewers for a stratified random selection of 400 measurements and (2) evaluating its accuracy in a dataset with simulated errors.

resultsOf 2 000 595 growth measurements from 280 610 patients 1 to 21 years old, 3.8% of weight and 4.5% of height values were identified as implausible or excluded for other reasons. The proportion excluded varied widely by primary care site. The automated method had a sensitivity of 97% (95% confidence interval [CI], 94-99%) and a specificity of 90% (95% CI, 85-94%) for identifying implausible values compared to physician judgment, and identified 95% (weight) and 98% (height) of simulated errors. DISCUSSION AND

conclusionThis automated, flexible, and validated method for preparing large datasets will facilitate the use of pediatric EHR growth datasets for research.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsElectronic Health RecordsGrowthGrowth ChartsAdolescentBody HeightBody WeightChildChild, PreschoolDatasets as TopicFemaleHumansInfantMalePrimary Health CareYoung Adultdata qualitygrowthresearch methodology

Identifiers

PMID28453637
PMCPMC7651915

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.