ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Real-World Evidence of COVID-19 Patients' Data Quality in the Electronic Health Records.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Electronic health record data quality assessment and tools: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023Pooled it
- A mixed-methods study comparing clinical and patient-reported perspectives on long COVID: insights from electronic health records and narrative journal entries.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Observational
- Data-Driven Implementation Trials: Realizing Their Full Potential in Achieving the Promise of Learning Health Systems.Learning health systems · 2026Article
- Impact of COVID-19 on General Medical Rehabilitation Efficiency in Designated Inpatient Facilities: A Comparative Analysis of Patient Outcomes and Care Processes.Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation · 2025Article
- Translational Success and Pharmacoeconomic Lessons of Pandemic-Driven Drug Repurposing.Cureus · 2025Review
- Reusing routine electronic health record data for nationwide COVID-19 surveillance in nursing homes: barriers, facilitators, and lessons learned.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- Systematic data quality assessment of electronic health record data to evaluate study-specific fitness: Report from the PRESERVE research study.PLOS digital health · 2024Article
- Burden of Neurologic Health Care and Incident Neurologic Diagnoses in the Year After COVID-19 or Influenza Hospitalization.Neurology · 2024Article
- Factors Affecting the Medical Coding Errors of COVID-19 Hospital Records: A Cross-Sectional Study in East Iran.Tanaffos · 2024Article
- Article
- Health Informatics: The Foundations of Public Health.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Consensus Recommendations for Maintaining Neurorehabilitation Quality During Healthcare Crises: A Stakeholder-Informed Mixed Methods Study.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite the importance of electronic health records data, less attention has been given to data quality. This study aimed to evaluate the quality of COVID-19 patients' records and their readiness for secondary use. We conducted a retrospective chart review study of all COVID-19 inpatients in an academic healthcare hospital for the year 2020, which were identified using ICD-10 codes and case definition guidelines. COVID-19 signs and symptoms were higher in unstructured clinical notes than in structured coded data. COVID-19 cases were categorized as 218 (66.46%) "confirmed cases", 10 (3.05%) "probable cases", 9 (2.74%) "suspected cases", and 91 (27.74%) "no sufficient evidence". The identification of "probable cases" and "suspected cases" was more challenging than "confirmed cases" where laboratory confirmation was sufficient. The accuracy of the COVID-19 case identification was higher in laboratory tests than in ICD-10 codes. When validating using laboratory results, we found that ICD-10 codes were inaccurately assigned to 238 (72.56%) patients' records. "No sufficient evidence" records might indicate inaccurate and incomplete EHR data. Data quality evaluation should be incorporated to ensure patient safety and data readiness for secondary use research and predictive analytics. We encourage educational and training efforts to motivate healthcare providers regarding the importance of accurate documentation at the point-of-care.
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.