Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31660955›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2019

Feasibility analysis of conducting observational studies with the electronic health record.

Marcel von Lucadou, Thomas Ganslandt, Hans-Ulrich Prokosch, Dennis Toddenroth

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Digital Health Data Quality Issues: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Increasing trust in real-world evidence through evaluation of observational data quality.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review of Clinical Research Informatics.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2020
    Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Marcel von LucadouChair of Medical Informatics, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany. marcel.von.lucadou@fau.de.ORCID 0000-0003-2027-2313
Thomas GanslandtDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Mannheim University Medicine, Ruprecht-Karls-University Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany.
Hans-Ulrich ProkoschChair of Medical Informatics, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Dennis ToddenrothChair of Medical Informatics, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg · DEUniversity of Mannheim · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe secondary use of electronic health records (EHRs) promises to facilitate medical research. We reviewed general data requirements in observational studies and analyzed the feasibility of conducting observational studies with structured EHR data, in particular diagnosis and procedure codes.

methodsAfter reviewing published observational studies from the University Hospital of Erlangen for general data requirements, we identified three different study populations for the feasibility analysis with eligibility criteria from three exemplary observational studies. For each study population, we evaluated the availability of relevant patient characteristics in our EHR, including outcome and exposure variables. To assess data quality, we computed distributions of relevant patient characteristics from the available structured EHR data and compared them to those of the original studies. We implemented computed phenotypes for patient characteristics where necessary. In random samples, we evaluated how well structured patient characteristics agreed with a gold standard from manually interpreted free texts. We categorized our findings using the four data quality dimensions "completeness", "correctness", "currency" and "granularity".

resultsReviewing general data requirements, we found that some investigators supplement routine data with questionnaires, interviews and follow-up examinations. We included 847 subjects in the feasibility analysis (Study 1 n = 411, Study 2 n = 423, Study 3 n = 13). All eligibility criteria from two studies were available in structured data, while one study required computed phenotypes in eligibility criteria. In one study, we found that all necessary patient characteristics were documented at least once in either structured or unstructured data. In another study, all exposure and outcome variables were available in structured data, while in the other one unstructured data had to be consulted. The comparison of patient characteristics distributions, as computed from structured data, with those from the original study yielded similar distributions as well as indications of underreporting. We observed violations in all four data quality dimensions.

conclusionsWhile we found relevant patient characteristics available in structured EHR data, data quality problems may entail that it remains a case-by-case decision whether diagnosis and procedure codes are sufficient to underpin observational studies. Free-text data or subsequently supplementary study data may be important to complement a comprehensive patient history.

Indexed as

Data AccuracyElectronic Health RecordsFeasibility StudiesGermanyHumansObservational Studies as TopicAvailabilityCompletenessCorrectnessCurrencyData qualityElectronic health recordGranularityObservational studyRetrospective study

Identifiers

PMID31660955
PMCPMC6819452
OpenAlexW2982480407

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.