Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29854208›Full record

ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2017

Challenges with Collecting Smoking Status in Electronic Health Records.

Fernanda Polubriaginof, Hojjat Salmasian, David A Albert, David K Vawdrey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

63 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines 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. Digital Health Data Quality Issues: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Smoking Is Associated With COVID-19 Progression: A Meta-analysis.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2020
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Assessment and Use of Electronic Patient Records for Smoking Cessation Support in Hospital Setting: A Cross-Sectional Study.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Performance of risk models to predict mortality risk for patients with heart failure: evaluation in an integrated health system.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2024
    Article
  20. Observational

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

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

4 authors.

Fernanda PolubriaginofColumbia University, New York, NY.
Hojjat SalmasianNewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY.
David A AlbertColumbia University, New York, NY.
David K VawdreyNewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States. Obtaining patients' smoking status is the first step in delivering smoking cessation counseling. In this study, we assessed the quality of smoking status captured in an electronic health record from a large academic medical center. We analyzed data from structured notes, finding that smoking status was documented in 98% of 64,451 hospital encounters in 2016. 32% hospital encounters had discrepant documentation, and 54.5% of patients had implausible changes (e.g., changes from "current smoker" to "never smoker"). Overall, only 2.9% of patients were documented as active smokers, but 36.4% were documented as "unknown" or had discrepancies in their smoking status. These results suggest that patients that smoke are not appropriately identified. Centralized documentation with clinically actionable smoking status categories and implementation of patient-facing tools that allow patients to directly record their information could improve data quality of smoking status.

Indexed as

DocumentationElectronic Health RecordsSmokingAcademic Medical CentersData AccuracyHumansMedical Records Systems, ComputerizedRetrospective StudiesUnited States

Identifiers

PMID29854208
PMCPMC5977725

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.