Observational studyScientific reports2026
Automating the assessment of quality indicators using a clinical data warehouse: a pilot study on door-to-imaging time in stroke management.
Observational study in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Assessment of quality and safety indicators (QSIs) remains often based on time-consuming manual Electronic Health Record (EHR) review. As part of a pilot study to examine the feasibility of automating the calculation of French national QSIs using a Clinical Data Warehouse (CDW), we focused on the measure of door-to-imaging time (DTI time) in stroke management, i.e., the time interval between arrival at the hospital and the first stroke diagnostic imaging, through a retrospective observational study of patients hospitalized in the Greater Paris University Hospitals (AP-HP) for an acute stroke in 2022. We automatically computed the DTI time for more than 6,000 medical records in the CDW using a systematic approach and validated this method by matching the results against the manual AP-HP EHR review from the 2022 French national QSI audit. In this Matched population, CDW and manual EHR review methods agreed on estimating overall indicators, but showed discrepancies in the case-by-case analysis, mainly because of human variability both in EHR completion and manual reviewing. Automation looks promising in a context of limited professional resources but requires structured and validated data, interoperability in the case of inter-institutional stays, and validly measurable QSI.
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.