Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32576940›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2020

Automated data cleaning of paediatric anthropometric data from longitudinal electronic health records: protocol and application to a large patient cohort.

Hang T T Phan, Florina Borca, David Cable, James Batchelor, Justin H Davies, Sarah Ennis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2020. 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
–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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Using automated methods to detect safety problems with health information technology: a scoping review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

6 authors.

Hang T T PhanNIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospital Southampton, Southampton, UK. hang.phan@soton.ac.uk.
Florina BorcaUniversity of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
David CableUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
James BatchelorNIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospital Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Justin H Davies *University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
Sarah Ennis *NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospital Southampton, Southampton, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

'Big data' in healthcare encompass measurements collated from multiple sources with various degrees of data quality. These data require quality control assessment to optimise quality for clinical management and for robust large-scale data analysis in healthcare research. Height and weight data represent one of the most abundantly recorded health statistics. The shift to electronic recording of anthropometric measurements in electronic healthcare records, has rapidly inflated the number of measurements. WHO guidelines inform removal of population-based extreme outliers but an absence of tools limits cleaning of longitudinal anthropometric measurements. We developed and optimised a protocol for cleaning paediatric height and weight data that incorporates outlier detection using robust linear regression methodology using a manually curated set of 6,279 patients' longitudinal measurements. The protocol was then applied to a cohort of 200,000 patient records collected from 60,000 paediatric patients attending a regional teaching hospital in South England. WHO guidelines detected biologically implausible data in <1% of records. Additional error rates of 3% and 0.2% for height and weight respectively were detected using the protocol. Inflated error rates for height measurements were largely due to small but physiologically implausible decreases in height. Lowest error rates were observed when data was measured and digitally recorded by staff routinely required to do so. The protocol successfully automates the parsing of implausible and poor quality height and weight data from a voluminous longitudinal dataset and standardises the quality assessment of data for clinical and research applications.

Indexed as

AnthropometryData AnalysisElectronic Health RecordsAdultBody HeightBody WeightChildCohort StudiesData AccuracyDatasets as TopicFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleQuality Assurance, Health CareQuality Control

Identifiers

PMID32576940
PMCPMC7311482

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.