Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37231360›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2023

Stratified split sampling of electronic health records.

Tianyao Huo, Deborah H Glueck, Elizabeth A Shenkman, Keith E Muller

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Tianyao HuoDepartment of Health Outcomes and Biomedical Informatics, College of Medicine, University of Florida, 2004 Mowry Road; Room 2236-5, PO Box 100177, Gainesville, FL, 32608, USA.
Deborah H GlueckDepartment of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, University of Colorado, 12474 E. 19th Avenue, Building 402, Room 219 Main Stop F426, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA.
Elizabeth A ShenkmanDepartment of Health Outcomes and Biomedical Informatics, College of Medicine, University of Florida, 2004 Mowry Road; Room 2245, PO Box 100177, Gainesville, FL, 32608, USA.
Keith E MullerDepartment of Health Outcomes and Biomedical Informatics, College of Medicine, University of Florida, 2004 Mowry Road; Room 2244, PO Box 100177, Gainesville, FL, 32608, USA. kmuller@ufl.edu.
University of Florida Health · USFlorida College · USUniversity of Colorado Denver · US

Funding

Methods and Software for Lifecourse Epidemiology Data and Sample Size AnalysisR01GM121081 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI DABELEA, DANA, GLUECK, DEBORAH HELEN · 2016 to 2019
$2.6M
Novel, High-Impact Studies Evaluating Health System and Healthcare Professional Responsiveness to COVID-19R01HS028283 · AHRQ · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI CARRASQUILLO, OLVEEN, MODAVE, FRANCOIS PAUL PHILIPPE · 2021 to 2022
$983k
AHRQ HHS R01 HS028283NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM121081
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although superficially similar to data from clinical research, data extracted from electronic health records may require fundamentally different approaches for model building and analysis. Because electronic health record data is designed for clinical, rather than scientific use, researchers must first provide clear definitions of outcome and predictor variables. Yet an iterative process of defining outcomes and predictors, assessing association, and then repeating the process may increase Type I error rates, and thus decrease the chance of replicability, defined by the National Academy of Sciences as the chance of "obtaining consistent results across studies aimed at answering the same scientific question, each of which has obtained its own data."[1] In addition, failure to account for subgroups may mask heterogeneous associations between predictor and outcome by subgroups, and decrease the generalizability of the findings. To increase chances of replicability and generalizability, we recommend using a stratified split sample approach for studies using electronic health records. A split sample approach divides the data randomly into an exploratory set for iterative variable definition, iterative analyses of association, and consideration of subgroups. The confirmatory set is used only to replicate results found in the first set. The addition of the word 'stratified' indicates that rare subgroups are oversampled randomly by including them in the exploratory sample at higher rates than appear in the population. The stratified sampling provides a sufficient sample size for assessing heterogeneity of association by testing for effect modification by group membership. An electronic health record study of the associations between socio-demographic factors and uptake of hepatic cancer screening, and potential heterogeneity of association in subgroups defined by gender, self-identified race and ethnicity, census-tract level poverty and insurance type illustrates the recommended approach.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsResearch DesignEthnicityHumansPovertySample SizeElectronic health recordGeneralizabilityReplicabilitySubgroup

Identifiers

PMID37231360
PMCPMC10210417
OpenAlexW4378231929

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.