ArticleJournal of racial and ethnic health disparities2025
Evaluation of Reliability Between Race and Ethnicity Data Obtained from Self-report Versus Electronic Health Record.
Article in Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Race and Ethnicity Data in the Electronic Health Records: New Insights Through Comparison with American Community Survey Microdata.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2026Article
- Collection and Use of Patient Demographic Information at US Dental School Clinics.Journal of dental education · 2026Article
- The Impact of Race and Ethnicity on Cataract Surgery in the Nationwide All of Us Cohort.Ophthalmic epidemiology · 2025Article
- The Lifecycle of Electronic Health Record Data in HIV-Related Big Data Studies: Qualitative Study of Bias Instances and Potential Opportunities for Minimization.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Recommendations to improve race identification in health records: A rapid scoping review.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionDisparities based on perceived race and ethnicity exist in all fields of medicine. Accurate data collection is crucial to addressing these disparities, yet few studies have evaluated the validity of data gathered. This study compares self-reported race and ethnicity data, considered the gold standard, with data documented in the electronic health record (EHR), to assess the validity of that data.
methodsData from self-reported questionnaires was collected from adolescents admitted to a psychiatric inpatient unit from February 2019 to July 2022. Demographic questionnaires were self-administered as part of a larger battery completed during the admission process. Data was compared to demographic information collected from the hospital's EHR for the same patients and time.
resultsIn a sample of 1191 patients (ages 11-18, 61.9% female, 89% response rate), substantial agreement was observed for Hispanic ethnicity (κ = 0.64), while agreement for specific racial groups ranged from slight to substantial (κ = 0.10-0.63). In addition, it was noted that there was discrepancy between multiracial identification, with 17.1% of patients identifying as more than one race in self-reported data compared to 3.1% in EHR data.
conclusionsThe findings from this data set highlight the need for caution when using EHR data to draw conclusions about health disparities. It also suggests that the method of data collection meaningfully influences the responses patients provide. Addressing these challenges is essential for advancing equitable healthcare and mitigating disparities among patients.
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.