ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2022
Development and evaluation of a survey instrument to assess veterinary medical record suitability for multi-center research studies.
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accuracy of owner-reported diagnoses for dogs enrolled in the Dog Aging Project as compared to veterinary electronic medical records.PloS one · 2026Article
- Rationale and design of the Dog Aging Project precision cohort: a multi-omic resource for longitudinal research in geroscience.GeroScience · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Here we describe the development and evaluation of a survey instrument to assess the research suitability of veterinary electronic medical records (EMRs) through the conduct of two studies as part of the Dog Aging Project (DAP). In study 1, four reviewers used the instrument to score a total of 218 records in an overlapping matrix of pairs to assess inter-rater agreement with respect to appropriate format (qualification), identification match (verification), and record quality. Based upon the moderate inter-rater agreement with respect to verification and the relatively large number of records that were incorrectly rejected the instrument was modified and more specific instructions were provided. In study 2, a modified instrument was again completed by four reviewers to score 100 different EMRs. The survey scores were compared to a gold standard of board-certified specialist review to determine receiver operating curve statistics. The refined survey had substantial inter-rater agreement across most qualification and verification questions. The cut-off value identified had a sensitivity of 95 and 96% (by reviewer 1 and reviewer 2, respectively) and a specificity of 82% and 91% (by reviewer 1 and reviewer 2, respectively) to predict gold standard acceptance or rejection of the record. Using just qualification and verification questions within the instrument (as opposed to full scoring) minimally impacted sensitivity and specificity and resulted in substantial time savings in the review 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.