Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29881766›Full record

ArticleEGEMS (Washington, DC)2018

Automating Electronic Clinical Data Capture for Quality Improvement and Research: The CERTAIN Validation Project of Real World Evidence.

Emily Beth Devine, Erik Van Eaton, Megan E Zadworny, Rebecca Symons, Allison Devlin, David Yanez, Meliha Yetisgen, Katelyn R Keyloun, Daniel Capurro, Rafael Alfonso-Cristancho and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. A Systematic Review of Electronic Medical Record Driven Quality Measurement and Feedback Systems.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Clinical Research Informatics: Contributions from 2018.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2019
    Article
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

12 authors.

Emily Beth DevineUniversity of Washington, US.ORCID 0000-0001-9945-6099
Erik Van EatonUniversity of Washington, US.ORCID 0000-0002-6005-7581
Megan E ZadwornyUniversity of Washington, US.ORCID 0000-0003-4088-3576
Rebecca SymonsUniversity of Washington, US.ORCID 0000-0002-9935-0494
Allison DevlinUniversity of Washington, US.ORCID 0000-0002-9407-6465
David YanezOregon Health and Sciences University, US.
Meliha YetisgenUniversity of Washington, US.ORCID 0000-0001-9919-9811
Katelyn R KeylounUniversity of Washington, US.
Daniel CapurroUniversity of Washington, US.ORCID 0000-0002-9256-1256
Rafael Alfonso-CristanchoUniversity of Washington, US.ORCID 0000-0002-7060-5131
David R FlumUniversity of Washington, US.ORCID 0000-0002-7288-0436
Peter Tarczy-HornochUniversity of Washington, US.ORCID 0000-0003-1047-179X

Funding

Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program Comparative Effectiveness ResearchR01HS020025 · AHRQ · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI FLUM, DAVID R · 2010 to 2010
$10.8M
AHRQ HHS R01 HS020025
6 · The paper itself

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

comparative effectiveness researchelectronic health recordsquality improvementvalidation studies

Identifiers

PMID29881766
PMCPMC5983060

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.