ArticleEye (London, England)2018
How do paper and electronic records compare for completeness? A three centre study.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2018. 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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Test the reliability and comparability of the paper version and electronic version of the Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index in Chinese language: a randomized, cross-sectional study.Clinical rheumatology · 2025Trial
- Enhancing clinical practice: the Endoscore app for automated surgical data capture and endometriosis scoring.Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2025Article
- Local Validation of a National Orthopaedic Registry.Cureus · 2024Article
- Clinical Characteristics and Management of Patients with Secondary Hyperparathyroidism Undergoing Hemodialysis: A Feasibility Analysis of Electronic Health Records Using Natural Language Processing.Kidney diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Changes in weekend and weekday care quality of emergency medical admissions to 20 hospitals in England during implementation of the 7-day services national health policy.BMJ quality & safety · 2021Article
- Applications of Machine Learning Using Electronic Medical Records in Spine Surgery.Neurospine · 2019Article
- Comment on: How do paper and electronic records compare for completeness? A three centre study.Eye (London, England) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesMedical records are legal documentation of patients' care hence must be accurate and complete for both medical and legal purposes. Electronic patient record (EPR) systems aim to improve the accuracy of documentation, provide better organisation and access of data. This study compares the completeness of traditional note records and EPR in glaucoma patients.
methodsUsing criteria from the April 2009 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines completeness of data entry was compared between EPR and paper notes in three units. Moorfields Eye Hospital (City Road) uses the Openeyes EPR. Bedford Hospital (Moorfields Eye Centre) and Western Eye Hospital use the Medisoft EPR. The standard was set at 100% compliance for predetermined parameters.
resultsOne hundred seventy paper notes and 270 electronic records were analysed. With the exception of central corneal thickness (p = 0.31), all other key parameters were more consistently recorded in the paper records than in the EPR. Intraocular pressure (p = 0.004), anterior chamber configuration and depth assessments using gonioscopy (p < 0.001), fundus examination (p = 0.015), past medical history (p < 0.001), medication including glaucoma medication (p < 0.001) and drug allergies (p < 0.001).
conclusionsOur results show that paper records are significantly more complete than EPR. This is the case for two different EPRs and three separate sites. We propose additional training to aid data-collection; improving the design of EPRs by investigating factors such as layout and use of forced choice fields.
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.