ArticlePloS one2026
Challenges and solutions in determining urolithiasis caseloads using the digital infrastructure of a clinical data warehouse.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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.
- [Evidence generation and methodological consultation by the project "EVAluation research based on data from routine clinical care 4 the Medical Informatics Initiative" (EVA4MII)].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2026Review
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
backgroundTo provide more evidence in urolithiasis research, we have established the German Nationwide Register for RECurrent URolithiasis (RECUR) using local clinical data warehouses (CDWH). For RECUR and other registers relying on digitalized clinical data, it is crucial to ensure the data's reliability for answering scientific questions. In this work, we aim to compare the results of different CDWH-based queries on urolithiasis cases next to manual case extraction from the primary source.
methodsSources for data extraction included the Medical Center University of Freiburg (MCUF) hospital information system (HIS), MCUF performance data (a clinical data set with merged data from patients including data from various time points throughout their treatment), and MCUF reimbursement data. We extracted data on caseloads in urolithiasis algorithmically (performance and reimbursement data) and compared those to a reference group compiled of manually extracted data from the local HIS and algorithmically extracted data.
resultsAlgorithmic extraction based on performance data resulted in correct and complete case identification as compared to the reference group. The case numbers from manual extraction from HIS data and algorithmic extraction from reimbursement data differed by 14% and 12%, respectively. The reasons for deviations in HIS data included human errors and a lack of data availability from different wards. Deviations in reimbursement data arose primarily due to the merging of cases in the context of reimbursement mechanisms. As the CDWH at MCUF is part of the German Medical Informatics Initiative (MII), the results can be transferred to other medical centers with similar CDWH structure.
conclusionsThe current study provides firm evidence of the importance of clearly defining a study's target variable, e.g., urolithiasis cases, and a thorough understanding of the data sources and modes used to extract the target data. Our work clearly shows that, depending on various data sources, a case is not a case is not a case.
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.