ArticleLearning health systems2025
Assessing the harmonization of structured electronic health record data to reference terminologies and data completeness through data provenance.
Article in Learning health systems, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Harmonizing self-reported and free text medication data: a reproducible pipeline for gerontological research.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Assessing the harmonization of structured electronic health record data to reference terminologies and data completeness through data provenance.Learning health systems · 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: (1) Assess the harmonization of structured electronic health record data (laboratory results and medications) to reference terminologies and characterize the severity of issues. (2) Identify issues of data completeness by comparing complementary data domains, stratifying by time, care setting, and provenance. Methods: Queries were distributed to 3 Data Partners (DP). Using harmonization queries, we examined the top 200 laboratory results and medications by volume, identifying outliers and computing summary statistics. The completeness queries looked at 4 conditions of interest and related clinical concepts. Counts were generated for each condition, stratified by year, encounter type, and provenance. We analyzed trends over time within and across DPs. Results: We found that the median number of codes associated with a given laboratory/medication name (and vice versa) generally met expectations, though there were DP-specific issues that resulted in outliers. In addition, there were drastic differences in the percentage of patients with a given concept depending on provenance. Conclusions: The harmonization queries surfaced several mapping errors, as well as issues with overly specific codes and records with "null" codes. The completeness queries demonstrated having access to multiple types of data provenance provides more robust results compared with any single provenance type. Harmonization errors between source data and reference terminologies may not be widespread but do exist within CDMs, affecting tens of thousands or even millions of records. Provenance information can help identify potential completeness issues with EHR data, but only if it is represented in the CDM and then populated by DPs.
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.