ReviewBioData mining2017
Methods for enhancing the reproducibility of biomedical research findings using electronic health records.
Review in BioData mining, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Availability and Quality of Electronic Health Record Data to Track Physical Function Across a Care Transition.Learning health systems · 2026Article
- Application of explainable artificial intelligence integrating with electronic health record in oncology.Exploration of targeted anti-tumor therapy · 2026Review
- Utilization of Computable Phenotypes in Electronic Health Record Research: A Review and Case Study in Atopic Dermatitis.The Journal of investigative dermatology · 2025Review
- Optimal Surrogate-Assisted Sampling for Cost-Efficient Validation of Electronic Health Record Outcomes.Statistics in medicine · 2025Article
- Transparency in the secondary use of health data: assessing the status quo of guidance and best practices.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- A Standardized Guideline for Assessing Extracted Electronic Health Records Cohorts: A Scoping Review.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2025Article
- EHRchitect: An open-source software tool for medical event sequences data extraction from Electronic Health Records.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- Determining prescriptions in electronic healthcare record data: methods for development of standardized, reproducible drug codelists.JAMIA open · 2023Article
- Development and Validation of a Tool to Identify Patients Diagnosed With Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2023Article
- Transforming and evaluating electronic health record disease phenotyping algorithms using the OMOP common data model: a case study in heart failure.JAMIA open · 2021Article
- Open Science in Emergency Medicine Research.Annals of emergency medicine · 2020Article
- Electronic health records and polygenic risk scores for predicting disease risk.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2020Review
- Assessing the impact of introductory programming workshops on the computational reproducibility of biomedical workflows.PloS one · 2020Article
- UK phenomics platform for developing and validating electronic health record phenotypes: CALIBER.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2019Article
- Article
- Code sets for respiratory symptoms in electronic health records research: a systematic review protocol.BMJ open · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe ability of external investigators to reproduce published scientific findings is critical for the evaluation and validation of biomedical research by the wider community. However, a substantial proportion of health research using electronic health records (EHR), data collected and generated during clinical care, is potentially not reproducible mainly due to the fact that the implementation details of most data preprocessing, cleaning, phenotyping and analysis approaches are not systematically made available or shared. With the complexity, volume and variety of electronic health record data sources made available for research steadily increasing, it is critical to ensure that scientific findings from EHR data are reproducible and replicable by researchers. Reporting guidelines, such as RECORD and STROBE, have set a solid foundation by recommending a series of items for researchers to include in their research outputs. Researchers however often lack the technical tools and methodological approaches to actuate such recommendations in an efficient and sustainable manner.
resultsIn this paper, we review and propose a series of methods and tools utilized in adjunct scientific disciplines that can be used to enhance the reproducibility of research using electronic health records and enable researchers to report analytical approaches in a transparent manner. Specifically, we discuss the adoption of scientific software engineering principles and best-practices such as test-driven development, source code revision control systems, literate programming and the standardization and re-use of common data management and analytical approaches.
conclusionThe adoption of such approaches will enable scientists to systematically document and share EHR analytical workflows and increase the reproducibility of biomedical research using such complex data sources.
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.