ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2024
Navigating electronic health record accuracy by examination of sex incongruent conditions.
Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Management and Genetics of Alopecia Areata within the USA: A Cross-Sectional Study of All of Us.Skin appendage disorders · 2025Article
- Article
- The future of electronic health record-based research: Leveraging informatics in genetic counseling research.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- Understanding the evolving treatment landscape of hidradenitis suppurativa: An analysis of All of Us.PloS one · 2025Article
- Epidemiological landscape of androgenetic alopecia in the US: An All of Us cross-sectional study.PloS one · 2025Article
- Epidemiological trends and healthcare disparities in onychomycosis: An analysis of the All of Us research program.PloS one · 2025Article
- Returning value to communities from the All of Us Research Program through innovative approaches for data use, analysis, dissemination, and research capacity building.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe increasing reliance on electronic health records (EHRs) for research and clinical care necessitates robust methods for assessing data quality and identifying inconsistencies. To address this need, we develop and apply the incongruence rate (IR) using sex-specific medical conditions. We also characterized participants with incongruent records to better understand the scope and nature of data discrepancies. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this cross-sectional study, we used the All of Us Research Program's latest version 7 (v7) EHR data to identify prevalent sex-specific conditions and evaluated the occurrence of incongruent cases, quantified as IR.
resultsAmong the 92 597 males and 152 551 females with condition occurrence data available from All of Us and sex-conformed gender, we identified 167 prevalent sex-specific conditions. Among the 37 537 biological males and 95 499 biological females with these sex-specific conditions, we detected an overall IR of 0.86%. Attempt to include non-cisgender participants result in inflated overall IR. Additionally, a significant proportion of participants with incongruent conditions also presented with conditions congruent to their biological sex, indicating a mix of accurate and erroneous records. These incongruences were not geographically or temporally isolated, suggesting systematic issues in EHR data integrity. DISCUSSION: Our findings call attention to the existence of systemic data incongruences in sex-specific conditions and the need for robust validation checks. Extending IR evaluation to non-cisgender participants or non-sex-based conditions remain a challenge.
conclusionThe sex condition-specific IR, when applied to adult populations, provides a valuable metric for data quality assessment in EHRs.
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.