ArticleFrontiers in digital health2022
Assessing the quality of electronic medical records in academic hospitals: A multi-center study in Iran.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Data quality assessment in healthcare, dimensions, methods and tools: a systematic review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Pooled it
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: The present study aimed to assess the quality of electronic medical records (EMR) retrieved from hospital information systems (HIS) of three educational hospitals in Mashhad, Iran. Methods: In this multi-center, cross-sectional study, inpatient electronic records collected from three academic hospitals were categorized into five data groups, namely demographics (D); care handler (CH), indicating the doers of the medical actions; diagnosis and treatment (DT); administrative and financial (AF); and laboratory and Para clinic (LP). Next, we asked 25 physicians from the three academic hospitals to determine data elements of medical research and education value (called research and educational data) in every group. Flowingly, the quality of the five data groups (completeness * accuracy) was reported for entire sampled data and those specified as research and educational data, based on the exact concordance between electronic medical records and corresponding paper records. HISRA, standing for HIS recording ability, was also assessed compared to data elements of standard paper forms. Results: For entire data, HISRA was 58.5%. In all hospitals, the highest data quality (more than 90%) belongs to D and AF data groups, and the lowest quality goes to CH and DT groups (less than 50%, and 60%, respectively). For research and educational data, HISRA was 47%, and the quality of D and AF data groups were the highest (nearly 100%), while CH and DT stood around 50% and 60% in order. The quality of the LP data group was almost 85% in all hospitals but hospital C (well over 30%). Total data quality for the hospitals was almost less than 70%. Conclusions: The low quality of electronic medical records was mostly a result of incompleteness, while the accuracy was relatively good. Results showed that the HIS application development mainly focused on administrative and financial aspects rather than academic and clinical goals.
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.