ArticleOphthalmology science2023
Visual Acuity: Assessment of Data Quality and Usability in an Electronic Health Record System.
Article in Ophthalmology science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 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
- Screening Questions to Identify Low Vision and Acuity-Defined Legal Blindness.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2026Article
- Zero-shot LLM-based visual acuity extraction: a pilot study.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Article
- The Correlation Between Eye Strain on Visual Acuity with Refractive Error Among Children.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2025Article
- Estimating Visual Acuity Without a Visual Acuity Chart.Translational vision science & technology · 2024Article
- Re: Goldstein et al: Visual acuity: assessment of data quality and usability in an electronic health record system (Ophthalmology science · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To examine the data quality and usability of visual acuity (VA) data extracted from an electronic health record (EHR) system during ophthalmology encounters and provide recommendations for consideration of relevant VA end points in retrospective analyses. Design: Retrospective, EHR data analysis. Participants: All patients with eyecare office encounters at any 1 of the 9 locations of a large academic medical center between August 1, 2013, and December 31, 2015. Methods: Data from 13 of the 21 VA fields (accounting for 93% VA data) in EHR encounters were extracted, categorized, recoded, and assessed for conformance and plausibility using an internal data dictionary, a 38-item listing of VA line measurements and observations including 28 line measurements (e.g., 20/30, 20/400) and 10 observations (e.g., no light perception). Entries were classified into usable and unusable data. Usable data were further categorized based on conformance to the internal data dictionary: (1) exact match; (2) conditional conformance, letter count (e.g., 20/30 Main Outcome Measures: Proportions of usable and unusable VA entries at the overall and subspecialty levels. Results: All VA data from 513 036 encounters representing 166 212 patients were included. Of the 1 573 643 VA entries, 1 438 661 (91.4%) contained usable data. There were 1 196 720 (76.0%) exact match (category 1), 185 692 (11.8%) conditional conformance (category 2), 40 270 (2.6%) convertible conformance (category 3), and 15 979 (1.0%) plausible but not conformed entries (category 4). Visual acuity entries during visits with providers from retina (17.5%), glaucoma (14.0%), neuro-ophthalmology (8.9%), and low vision (8.8%) had the highest rates of unusable data. Documented VA entries with providers from comprehensive eyecare (86.7%), oculoplastics (81.5%), and pediatrics/strabismus (78.6%) yielded the highest proportions of exact match with the data dictionary. Conclusions: Electronic health record VA data quality and usability vary across documented VA measures, observations, and eyecare subspecialty. We proposed a checklist of considerations and recommendations for planning, extracting, analyzing, and reporting retrospective study outcomes using EHR VA data. These are important first steps to standardize analyses enabling comparative research.
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.