ArticleBMJ open2025
Prevalence and types of errors in the electronic health record: protocol for a mixed systematic review.
Article in BMJ open, 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.
- Assessment of Electronic Clinical Monitoring Systems in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit: Prospective Concordance Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Incompleteness of Electronic Health Records: An Impending Process Problem Within Healthcare.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
introductionIn countries with access to the electronic health record (EHR), both patients and healthcare professionals have reported finding errors in the EHR, so-called EHRrors. These can range from simple typos to more serious cases of missing or incorrect health information. Despite their potential detrimental effect, the evidence on EHRrors has not been systematically analysed. It is unknown how common EHRrors are or how they impact patients and healthcare professionals. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A mixed systematic review will be carried out to address the research gap. We will search PubMed, Web of Science and CINAHL for studies published since 2000, which report original research data on patient-identified and healthcare professional-identified EHRrors. We will analyse (1) the prevalence of EHRrors, (2) the types of EHRrors and (3) their impact on care. Quantitative and qualitative findings will be synthesised following the Joanna Briggs Institute Framework for Mixed Systematic Reviews. Identified studies will be critically appraised for meta-biases and risk of bias in individual studies. The confidence in the emerging evidence will be further assessed through the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Findings will be contextualised and interpreted involving an international team of patient representatives and practising healthcare professionals. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study will not involve collection or analysis of individual patient data; thus, ethical approval is not required. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed publication and further disseminated through scientific events and educational materials. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024622849.
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.