Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37740937›Full record

ReviewJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2023

The relationship between electronic health records user interface features and data quality of patient clinical information: an integrative review.

Olatunde O Madandola, Ragnhildur I Bjarnadottir, Yingwei Yao, Margaret Ansell, Fabiana Dos Santos, Hwayoung Cho, Karen Dunn Lopez, Tamara G R Macieira, Gail M Keenan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

9 authors.

Olatunde O MadandolaUniversity of Florida College of Nursing, Gainesville, FL, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-8849-8434
Ragnhildur I BjarnadottirUniversity of Florida College of Nursing, Gainesville, FL, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6325-1200
Yingwei YaoUniversity of Florida College of Nursing, Gainesville, FL, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-5389-2717
Margaret AnsellUniversity of Florida Health Sciences Library, Gainesville, FL, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-1653-3816
Fabiana Dos SantosUniversity of Florida College of Nursing, Gainesville, FL, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-9780-4336
Hwayoung ChoUniversity of Florida College of Nursing, Gainesville, FL, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-6023-5309
Karen Dunn LopezUniversity of Iowa College of Nursing, Iowa City, IA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-9700-941X
Tamara G R MacieiraUniversity of Florida College of Nursing, Gainesville, FL, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-1100-3760
Gail M KeenanUniversity of Florida College of Nursing, Gainesville, FL, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-6364-2524

Funding

Tailored Clinical Decision Support Formats Designed to Improve Palliative Care for Cancer and Chronically Ill Patients: A Pre-Clinical TestR01NR018416 · NINR · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI DUNN LOPEZ, KAREN, KEENAN, GAIL M · 2019 to 2021
$1.7M
NINR NIH HHS R01 NR018416
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesElectronic health records (EHRs) user interfaces (UI) designed for data entry can potentially impact the quality of patient information captured in the EHRs. This review identified and synthesized the literature evidence about the relationship of UI features in EHRs on data quality (DQ). MATERIALS AND

methodsWe performed an integrative review of research studies by conducting a structured search in 5 databases completed on October 10, 2022. We applied Whittemore & Knafl's methodology to identify literature, extract, and synthesize information, iteratively. We adapted Kmet et al appraisal tool for the quality assessment of the evidence. The research protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020203998).

resultsEleven studies met the inclusion criteria. The relationship between 1 or more UI features and 1 or more DQ indicators was examined. UI features were classified into 4 categories: 3 types of data capture aids, and other methods of DQ assessment at the UI. The Weiskopf et al measures were used to assess DQ: completeness (n = 10), correctness (n = 10), and currency (n = 3). UI features such as mandatory fields, templates, and contextual autocomplete improved completeness or correctness or both. Measures of currency were scarce. DISCUSSION: The paucity of studies on UI features and DQ underscored the limited knowledge in this important area. The UI features examined had both positive and negative effects on DQ. Standardization of data entry and further development of automated algorithmic aids, including adaptive UIs, have great promise for improving DQ. Further research is essential to ensure data captured in our electronic systems are high quality and valid for use in clinical decision-making and other secondary analyses.

Indexed as

Data AccuracyElectronic Health RecordsDatabases, FactualData ManagementHumansclinical decision supportdata qualityelectronic health recordsstandardized datauser interface

Identifiers

PMID37740937
PMCPMC10746323

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.