ArticleJournal of public health dentistry2024
Systematically assessing the quality of dental electronic health record data for an investigation into oral health care disparities.
Article in Journal of public health dentistry, 2024. 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis work describes the process by which the quality of electronic health care data for a public health study was determined. The objectives were to adapt, develop, and implement data quality assessments (DQAs) based on the National Institutes of Health Pragmatic Trials Collaboratory (NIHPTC) data quality framework within the three domains of completeness, accuracy, and consistency, for an investigation into oral health care disparities of a preventive care program.
methodsElectronic health record data for eligible children in a dental accountable care organization of 30 offices, in Oregon, were extracted iteratively from January 1, 2014, through March 31, 2022. Baseline eligibility criteria included: children ages 0-18 with a baseline examination, Oregon home address, and either Medicaid or commercial dental benefits at least once between 2014 and 2108. Using the NIHPTC framework as a guide, DQAs were conducted throughout data element identification, extraction, staging, profiling, review, and documentation.
resultsThe data set included 91,487 subjects, 11 data tables comprising 75 data variables (columns), with a total of 6,861,525 data elements. Data completeness was 97.2%, the accuracy of EHR data elements in extracts was 100%, and consistency between offices was strong; 29 of 30 offices within 2 standard deviations of the mean (s = 94%).
conclusionsThe NIHPTC framework proved to be a useful approach, to identify, document, and characterize the dataset. The concepts of completeness, accuracy, and consistency were adapted by the multidisciplinary research team and the overall quality of the data are demonstrated to be of high quality.
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.