Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31553359›Full record

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.

Veronica Neves Fialho Queiroz, Andrea da Costa Moreira de Oliveira, Renato Carneiro de Freitas Chaves, Lucas Araújo de Borges Moura, Daniel Sousa César, Flávio Takaoka, Ary Serpa Neto

Abstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Which Electronic Health Record System Should We Use? A Systematic Review.Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

7 authors.

Veronica Neves Fialho QueirozHospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5213-0147
Andrea da Costa Moreira de OliveiraHospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6640-1734
Renato Carneiro de Freitas ChavesHospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7324-272X
Lucas Araújo de Borges MouraHospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6286-3464
Daniel Sousa CésarHospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1363-6935
Flávio TakaokaHospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2959-0318
Ary Serpa NetoHospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1520-9387

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Anesthesia, GeneralData AccuracyElectronic Health RecordsForms and Records ControlForms as TopicHumansMedical Records Systems, ComputerizedPostoperative ComplicationsProspective StudiesReproducibility of ResultsRespiration, ArtificialRobotic Surgical ProceduresTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID31553359
PMCPMC6748344

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.