ArticleEGEMS (Washington, DC)2018
Automating Electronic Clinical Data Capture for Quality Improvement and Research: The CERTAIN Validation Project of Real World Evidence.
Article in EGEMS (Washington, DC), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Challenges for Data Quality in the Clinical Data Life Cycle: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- A Systematic Review of Electronic Medical Record Driven Quality Measurement and Feedback Systems.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Pooled it
- A cross-institutional evaluation on breast cancer phenotyping NLP algorithms on electronic health records.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2023Article
- Eight Good Reasons for Careful Monitoring and Evaluation of the Vaccine Campaign against COVID-19: Lessons Learned through the Lombardy Experience for Dealing with Next Challenges.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Review
- Combining structured and unstructured data in EMRs to create clinically-defined EMR-derived cohorts.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021Article
- Technology-enabled assessments to enhance multiple sclerosis clinical care and research.Neurology. Clinical practice · 2020Article
- Igniting Harmonized Digital Clinical Quality Measurement through Terminology, CQL, and FHIR.Applied clinical informatics · 2020Article
- Clinical Research Informatics: Contributions from 2018.Yearbook of medical informatics · 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe availability of high fidelity electronic health record (EHR) data is a hallmark of the learning health care system. Washington State's Surgical Care Outcomes and Assessment Program (SCOAP) is a network of hospitals participating in quality improvement (QI) registries wherein data are manually abstracted from EHRs. To create the Comparative Effectiveness Research and Translation Network (CERTAIN), we semi-automated SCOAP data abstraction using a centralized federated data model, created a central data repository (CDR), and assessed whether these data could be used as real world evidence for QI and research.
objectivesDescribe the validation processes and complexities involved and lessons learned.
methodsInvestigators installed a commercial CDR to retrieve and store data from disparate EHRs. Manual and automated abstraction systems were conducted in parallel (10/2012-7/2013) and validated in three phases using the EHR as the gold standard: 1) ingestion, 2) standardization, and 3) concordance of automated versus manually abstracted cases. Information retrieval statistics were calculated.
resultsFour unaffiliated health systems provided data. Between 6 and 15 percent of data elements were abstracted: 51 to 86 percent from structured data; the remainder using natural language processing (NLP). In phase 1, data ingestion from 12 out of 20 feeds reached 95 percent accuracy. In phase 2, 55 percent of structured data elements performed with 96 to 100 percent accuracy; NLP with 89 to 91 percent accuracy. In phase 3, concordance ranged from 69 to 89 percent. Information retrieval statistics were consistently above 90 percent.
conclusionsSemi-automated data abstraction may be useful, although raw data collected as a byproduct of health care delivery is not immediately available for use as real world evidence. New approaches to gathering and analyzing extant data are required.
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.