ArticleBMC health services research2020
A prospective evaluation of inter-rater agreement of routine medical records audits at a large general hospital in São Paulo, Brazil.
Article in BMC health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rater Dependence in Emergency Department Catheter-Appropriateness Audits: A Prospective Three-Rater Study of Item-Level Reliability.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe quality of patient medical records is intrinsically related to patient safety, clinical decision-making, communication between health providers, and continuity of care. Additionally, its data are widely used in observational studies. However, the reliability of the information extracted from the records is a matter of concern in audit processes to ensure inter-rater agreement (IRA). Thus, the objective of this study is to evaluate the IRA among members of the Patient Health Record Review Board (PHRRB) in routine auditing of medical records, and the impact of periodic discussions of results with raters.
methodsA prospective longitudinal study was conducted between July of 2015 and April of 2016 at Hospital Municipal Dr. Moysés Deutsch, a large public hospital in São Paulo. The PHRRB was composed of 12 physicians, 9 nurses, and 3 physiotherapists who audited medical records monthly, with the number of raters changing throughout the study. PHRRB meetings were held to reach a consensus on rating criteria that the members use in the auditing process. A review chart was created for raters to verify the registry of the patient's secondary diagnosis, chief complaint, history of presenting complaint, past medical history, medication history, physical exam, and diagnostic testing. The IRA was obtained every three months. The Gwet's AC1 coefficient and Proportion of Agreement (PA) were calculated to evaluate the IRA for each item over time.
resultsThe study included 1884 items from 239 records with an overall full agreement among raters of 71.2%. A significant IRA increase of 16.5% (OR = 1.17; 95% CI = 1.03-1.32; p = 0.014) was found in the routine PHRRB auditing, with no significant differences between the PA and the Gwet's AC1, which showed a similar evolution over time. The PA decreased by 27.1% when at least one of the raters was absent from the review meeting (OR = 0.73; 95% CI = 0.53-1.00; p = 0.048).
conclusionsMedical record quality has been associated with the quality of care and could be optimized and improved by targeted interventions. The PA and the Gwet's AC1 are suitable agreement coefficients that are feasible to be incorporated in the routine PHRRB evaluation process.
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.