ArticleApplied clinical informatics2025
Epidemiology of Patient Record Duplication.
Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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
objectivesDuplicate patient records can increase costs and medical errors. We assessed the association between demographic factors, comorbidities, health care usage, and duplicate electronic health records.
methodsWe analyzed the association between duplicate patient records and multiple demographic variables (race, Hispanic ethnicity, sex, and age) as well as the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), number of diagnoses, and number of health care encounters. The study population included 3,018,413 patients seen at a large urban academic medical center with at least one recorded diagnosis. Duplication of patient medical records was determined by using a previously validated enterprise Master Person Index.
resultsUnknown or missing demographic data, Black race when compared with White race (odds ratio [OR]: 1.35,
conclusionThe odds of duplications in medical records were higher in Black, Hispanic, older, nonmale patients with more health care encounters, more comorbidities, and unknown demographic data. Understanding the epidemiology of duplicate records can help guide prevention and mitigation efforts for high-risk populations. Duplicate records can contribute to disparities in health care outcomes for minority populations.
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.