ArticleJAMIA open2025
Comparison of 2 electronic health record data extraction methods for laboratory tests used in the Veterans Aging Cohort Study Index.
Article in JAMIA open, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINC) and Veterans Aging Cohort Study (VACS) methods for extracting laboratory chemistry data from Veterans Health Administration (VA) electronic health records (EHR). Materials and Methods: Laboratory chemistry test results for 16 laboratory tests commonly assess in Veterans in VACS HIV ( Results: The LOINC approach captured laboratory results from all 130 VA stations for all 16 labs. The VACS approach captured laboratory results from 128 to130 stations. Both approaches yielded laboratory results for a patient on a given date for 97% or more of the observations for 10 of the tests, 94%-97% for 5 of the tests, and 89% for 1 test. The percentage of exact matches on the value of the test result exceeded 99% for 10 of the laboratory tests and 92% for all other laboratory tests. Discussion: Both approaches resulted in extraction of similar amounts of data in terms of individual patients, VA stations and total observations for all 16 tests. Both approaches yielded high agreement on test results in terms of identical values and correlation of test results for all tests. Conclusion: The high level of agreement between VACS and LOINC approaches in this study demonstrate the favorable use of the LOINC approach for extracting laboratory results for most tests due to the ease and efficiency of this approach without compromising validity.
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.