ArticleJAMIA open2026
Validation of pregnancy date estimation from outpatient electronic health record data.
Article in JAMIA open, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Electronic health record (EHR) data can enrich investigation of maternal health and pregnancy in large populations. However, many outpatient care settings lack data infrastructure to record pregnancy start and end dates, limiting the reach of EHR-based research. We examined the accuracy of pregnancy dates estimated from outpatient EHR data, compared to linked state birth certificate data. Materials and Methods: We examined 47 515 pregnancies delivered in OR and CA from the PROMISE study. Pregnancy start and end dates were estimated from outpatient encounter data (procedures, diagnoses), pregnancy episode records (delivery date, gestational age at birth), last menstrual period, estimated due date (EDD), and linkage of clinical records for parents and children. We validated these EHR-derived dates against linked state birth certificates. Results: When estimating pregnancy dates from all available EHR fields, start dates differed from birth certificates by an average of 3.7 days and end dates by 0.2 days. Pregnancy episode data and linked child birthdates enabled most estimates; without these sources, only 490 pregnancies were estimable, which had lower accuracy in end dates (>38 days difference). Estimated start dates were most accurate when based on gestational age and EDD (<1 day, <4 days difference, respectively). Estimated end dates were most accurate when based on child birthdates and episode delivery dates (<1 day difference). Conclusion: In outpatient EHR data, pregnancy episode records and linked child birthdates provide the most accurate estimates of pregnancy timing. For research not requiring precise dating, isolated diagnosis and procedure codes may suffice.
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.