ArticlePLOS digital health2025
Accuracy of preferred language data in a multi-hospital electronic health record in Toronto, Canada.
Article in PLOS digital health, 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.
- Language barriers, mobility, and health equity: clinical risks, economic burden, and policy options for universal language access.International journal for equity in health · 2026Review
- Language Preference and Antibiotic Use Among Hospitalized Older Adults With Dementia.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate preferred language data is a prerequisite for providing high-quality care. We investigated the accuracy of preferred language data in the electronic health record (EHR) of a large community hospital network in Toronto, Canada. We conducted a point-prevalence audit of patients admitted to intensive care, internal medicine, and nephrology services at three hospitals. We asked each patient "What is your preferred language for health care communication?" and reported on agreement (with 95% confidence intervals [CI]) between interview-based and EHR-based preferred language. We used Bayesian multilevel logistic regression to analyze the association between patient factors and the accuracy of the EHR for patients who preferred a non-English language. Between June 17, 2024, and July 19, 2024, we interviewed 323 patients, of whom 124 (38%) preferred a non-English language. Median age was 77 years and 46% were female. EHR accuracy was 86% for all patients. The probability of the EHR correctly identifying a patient with non-English preferred language (sensitivity) was 69% (CI 60-77), specificity was 97% (CI 94-99), positive predictive value was 95% (CI 88-98), and negative predictive value was 83% (CI 79-87). There were 26 different non-English preferred languages, most commonly Cantonese (27%) and Tamil (14%). Accuracy was better for patients who were female or older, and varied by hospital and medical service. Mechanisms to improve accuracy for language preference data are needed to improve the validity of research studying preferred language, mitigate algorithmic bias, and overcome language-based inequities.
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.