Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35618978›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical systems2022

The Impact of Structured and Standardized Documentation on Documentation Quality; a Multicenter, Retrospective Study.

Tom Ebbers, Rudolf B Kool, Ludi E Smeele, Richard Dirven, Chrisje A den Besten, Luc H E Karssemakers, Tim Verhoeven, Jasmijn M Herruer, Guido B van den Broek, Robert P Takes

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical systems, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 71 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
71citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
26.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

71 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 109 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Current practices in peer review in German radiation oncology: a nationwide survey.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

11 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Tom EbbersDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands. tom.ebbers@radboudumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1089-1199
Rudolf B KoolRadboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, IQ Healthcare, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Ludi E SmeeleDepartment of Head and Neck Oncology and Surgery, Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Richard DirvenDepartment of Head and Neck Oncology and Surgery, Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Chrisje A den BestenDepartment of Head and Neck Oncology and Surgery, Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Luc H E KarssemakersDepartment of Head and Neck Oncology and Surgery, Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Tim VerhoevenDepartment of Oromaxillofacial Surgery and Head and Neck Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Jasmijn M HerruerDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Guido B van den BroekDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Robert P TakesDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Radboud University Nijmegen · NLThe Netherlands Cancer Institute · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The reuse of healthcare data for various purposes will become increasingly important in the future. To enable the reuse of clinical data, structured and standardized documentation is conditional. However, the primary purpose of clinical documentation is to support high-quality patient care. Therefore, this study investigated the effect of increased structured and standardized documentation on the quality of notes in the Electronic Health Record. A multicenter, retrospective design was used to assess the difference in note quality between 144 unstructured and 144 structured notes. Independent reviewers measured note quality by scoring the notes with the Qnote instrument. This instrument rates all note elements independently using and results in a grand mean score on a 0-100 scale. The mean quality score for unstructured notes was 64.35 (95% CI 61.30-67.35). Structured and standardized documentation improved the Qnote quality score to 77.2 (95% CI 74.18-80.21), a 12.8 point difference (p < 0.001). Furthermore, results showed that structured notes were significantly longer than unstructured notes. Nevertheless, structured notes were more clear and concise. Structured documentation led to a significant increase in note quality. Moreover, considering the benefits of structured data recording in terms of data reuse, implementing structured and standardized documentation into the EHR is recommended.

Indexed as

DocumentationElectronic Health RecordsHumansQuality of Health CareRetrospective StudiesData reuseDocumentation qualityElectronic health recordStructured and standardized documentationStructured documentation

Identifiers

PMID35618978
PMCPMC9135789
OpenAlexW4281989098

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.