Observational studyEinstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2019
Methodological description of clinical research data collection through electronic medical records in a center participating in an international multicenter study.
Observational study in Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Which Electronic Health Record System Should We Use? A Systematic Review.Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre · 2022Pooled it
- Evaluation of the clinical impact of different telemedicine practices in intensive care units: A stepped-wedge cluster randomized clinical trial (TELESCOPE 2): Study protocol.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2026Article
- Applicability of electronic health records in the hospital Nursing Process: a scoping review.Revista brasileira de enfermagem · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Data collection for clinical research can be difficult, and electronic health record systems can facilitate this process. The aim of this study was to describe and evaluate the secondary use of electronic health records in data collection for an observational clinical study. We used Cerner Millennium®, an electronic health record software, following these steps: (1) data crossing between the study's case report forms and the electronic health record; (2) development of a manual collection method for data not recorded in Cerner Millennium®; (3) development of a study interface for automatic data collection in the electronic health records; (4) employee training; (5) data quality assessment; and (6) filling out the electronic case report form at the end of the study. Three case report forms were consolidated into the electronic case report form at the end of the study. Researchers performed daily qualitative and quantitative analyses of the data. Data were collected from 94 patients. In the first case report form, 76.5% of variables were obtained electronically, in the second, 95.5%, and in the third, 100%. The daily quality assessment of the whole process showed complete and correct data, widespread employee compliance and minimal interference in their practice. The secondary use of electronic health records is safe and effective, reduces manual labor, and provides data reliability. Anesthetic care and data collection may be done by the same professional.
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.