ArticleHealth equity2025
Accuracy of Race and Ethnicity Data in the Pediatric Electronic Health Record: A Concordance and System Adequacy Study.
Article in Health equity, 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.
- Understanding the Current Landscape of Health Disparities Research Among Youth With Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis.The Journal of rheumatology · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Conventional race and ethnicity categories and analysis are reductive and prone to inaccuracy. Because race and ethnicity data validity is essential to health equity efforts, we measured the accuracy of race and ethnicity data in a pediatric electronic health record (EHR) to identify areas for improvement in data collection and use. Methods: Patients and their caregivers reported patient race and ethnicity via in-person survey in four pediatric settings (inpatient, emergency room, urgent care, and primary care). Race and ethnicity data from the EHR were compared with survey data to calculate four measures of EHR data accuracy. The U.S. Census Bureau's novel categorization scheme was used to analyze racial and ethnic identities "alone" and "in combination" with ≥1 other identity. Results: Caregivers for 561 patients completed the survey; 116 patients aged ≥12 years completed a patient version. For consolidated race and ethnicity fields, overall concordance between survey and EHR was 74.6%. Concordance differed by race and ethnicity category when alone (Black or African American 96.1%, Hispanic 90.6%, and White 92.5%) and in combination with another category (Black or African American 93.9%, Hispanic 88.6%, and White 84.4%). The EHR had low accuracy for patients with multiple racial or ethnic identities (overall sensitivity 35%). Such patients' identities were often oversimplified due to EHR design. Using "alone" and "in combination" analysis for race and ethnicity categories allowed all patient identities to be visible across categories, unlike in conventional race and ethnicity analysis. Discussion: Identifying and eliminating health disparities depend on accurate race and ethnicity data, but current EHR design provides an unreliable data foundation for needed analyses. Conventional categorization used in race and ethnicity analysis is problematic, hiding identities in a reductive set of groupings. New approaches to validation, categorization, and analysis, as explored in this study, are urgently needed to advance health equity goals.
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.