ArticleJMIR medical informatics2024
Electronic Health Record Data Quality and Performance Assessments: Scoping Review.
Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2024. 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.
- Artificial Intelligence for the Prediction of Preeclampsia: Current Evidence, Comparison with Conventional Screening Models, and Future Perspectives.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- AI Scribe Safety: Measuring What Happens After Signing.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Pharmaceutical Care:Saudi medical journal · 2026Review
- Article
- The Potential of Artificial Intelligence in the Diagnosis and Prognosis of Sepsis: A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Electronic health records (EHRs) have an enormous potential to advance medical research and practice through easily accessible and interpretable EHR-derived databases. Attainability of this potential is limited by issues with data quality (DQ) and performance assessment. Objective: This review aims to streamline the current best practices on EHR DQ and performance assessments as a replicable standard for researchers in the field. Methods: PubMed was systematically searched for original research articles assessing EHR DQ and performance from inception until May 7, 2023. Results: Our search yielded 26 original research articles. Most articles had 1 or more significant limitations, including incomplete or inconsistent reporting (n=6, 30%), poor replicability (n=5, 25%), and limited generalizability of results (n=5, 25%). Completeness (n=21, 81%), conformance (n=18, 69%), and plausibility (n=16, 62%) were the most cited indicators of DQ, while correctness or accuracy (n=14, 54%) was most cited for data performance, with context-specific supplementation by recency (n=7, 27%), fairness (n=6, 23%), stability (n=4, 15%), and shareability (n=2, 8%) assessments. Artificial intelligence-based techniques, including natural language data extraction, data imputation, and fairness algorithms, were demonstrated to play a rising role in improving both dataset quality and performance. Conclusions: This review highlights the need for incentivizing DQ and performance assessments and their standardization. The results suggest the usefulness of artificial intelligence-based techniques for enhancing DQ and performance to unlock the full potential of EHRs to improve medical research and practice.
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.