Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34717599›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2021

Assessing the suitability of general practice electronic health records for clinical prediction model development: a data quality assessment.

Sharmala Thuraisingam, Patty Chondros, Michelle M Dowsey, Tim Spelman, Stephanie Garies, Peter F Choong, Jane Gunn, Jo-Anne Manski-Nankervis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Electronic health record data quality assessment and tools: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

8 authors.

Sharmala ThuraisingamDepartment of Surgery, University of Melbourne, 29 Regent Street, Fitzroy, VIC, 3065, Australia. sharmala.thuraisingam@unimelb.edu.au.
Patty ChondrosDepartment of General Practice, University of Melbourne, 780 Elizabeth Street, Parkville, VIC, 3010, Australia.
Michelle M DowseyDepartment of Surgery, University of Melbourne, 29 Regent Street, Fitzroy, VIC, 3065, Australia.
Tim SpelmanDepartment of Surgery, University of Melbourne, 29 Regent Street, Fitzroy, VIC, 3065, Australia.
Stephanie GariesDepartment of Family Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Alberta, T2N 4N1, Canada.
Peter F ChoongDepartment of Surgery, University of Melbourne, 29 Regent Street, Fitzroy, VIC, 3065, Australia.
Jane GunnDepartment of General Practice, University of Melbourne, 780 Elizabeth Street, Parkville, VIC, 3010, Australia.
Jo-Anne Manski-NankervisDepartment of General Practice, University of Melbourne, 780 Elizabeth Street, Parkville, VIC, 3010, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of general practice electronic health records (EHRs) for research purposes is in its infancy in Australia. Given these data were collected for clinical purposes, questions remain around data quality and whether these data are suitable for use in prediction model development. In this study we assess the quality of data recorded in 201,462 patient EHRs from 483 Australian general practices to determine its usefulness in the development of a clinical prediction model for total knee replacement (TKR) surgery in patients with osteoarthritis (OA).

methodsVariables to be used in model development were assessed for completeness and plausibility. Accuracy for the outcome and competing risk were assessed through record level linkage with two gold standard national registries, Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) and National Death Index (NDI). The validity of the EHR data was tested using participant characteristics from the 2014-15 Australian National Health Survey (NHS).

resultsThere were substantial missing data for body mass index and weight gain between early adulthood and middle age. TKR and death were recorded with good accuracy, however, year of TKR, year of death and side of TKR were poorly recorded. Patient characteristics recorded in the EHR were comparable to participant characteristics from the NHS, except for OA medication and metastatic solid tumour.

conclusionsIn this study, data relating to the outcome, competing risk and two predictors were unfit for prediction model development. This study highlights the need for more accurate and complete recording of patient data within EHRs if these data are to be used to develop clinical prediction models. Data linkage with other gold standard data sets/registries may in the meantime help overcome some of the current data quality challenges in general practice EHRs when developing prediction models.

Indexed as

Data AccuracyElectronic Health RecordsAdultAustraliaFamily PracticeHumansMiddle AgedModels, StatisticalPrognosisClinical prediction model developmentData linkageData quality assessmentElectronic health recordsElectronic medical recordsGeneral practicePrimary care

Identifiers

PMID34717599
PMCPMC8557028

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.