ArticlePloS one2020
Comparison of physical examination and laboratory data between a clinical study and electronic health records.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Developing a synthetic control group using electronic health records: Application to a single-arm lifestyle intervention study.Preventive medicine reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Research based on secondary analysis of data stored in electronic health records (EHR) has gained popularity, but whether the data are consistent with those collected under a study setting is unknown. The objective is to assess the agreement between data obtained in a prospective study and routine-care data extracted retrospectively from the EHR. We compared the data collected in a longitudinal lifestyle intervention study with those recorded in the EHR system over 5 years. A total of 225 working adults were recruited at an academic institution between 2008-2012, whose EHR data were also available during the same time period. After aligning the participants' study visit dates with their hospital encounter dates, data on blood pressure, body mass index (BMI), and laboratory measurements (including high-density lipoprotein (HDL), low-density lipoprotein (LDL), triglycerides, and total cholesterol) were compared via a paired t-test for equivalence with pre-specified margins. Summary statistics were used to compare smoking status and medication prescriptions. Overall, data were consistent between the two sources (i.e., BMI, smoking status, medication prescriptions), whereas some differences were found in cholesterol measurements (i.e., HDL and total cholesterol), possibly due to different lab assays and subject's fasting status. In conclusion, some EHR data are fairly consistent with those collected in a clinical study, whereas others may require further examination. Researchers should evaluate the consistency and quality of EHR data and compare them with other sources of data when possible.
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.