SynthesisBMC health services research2026
Factors associated with inpatient medical record data quality in hospital settings: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC health services research, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInpatient medical record data are an important source of information for clinical care, hospital management, clinical coding, and reimbursement. Poor-quality record data may lead to incomplete documentation, coding errors, inaccurate performance assessment, and distorted reimbursement. In this review, data quality mainly refers to the accuracy, completeness, consistency, timeliness, and validity of inpatient medical record data, including front-page or home-page information and diagnosis/procedure coding data. Evidence on factors associated with these dimensions is scattered across studies of clinical documentation, coding practice, information systems, quality-control, and payment reform. This systematic review aims to synthesise the key associated factors and provide evidence for quality improvement in healthcare organisations.
methodsThis review followed the PRISMA 2020 reporting guideline and was registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251244232). PubMed, Scopus, CNKI, and Wanfang Data were searched for English and Chinese studies published from 1 January 2021 to 7 November 2025. Two reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and appraised methodological quality using Joanna Briggs Institute tools. Because of heterogeneity in designs, outcomes, and measurements, findings were synthesised narratively.
resultsA total of 29 primary empirical studies were included in the narrative synthesis. Most studies were cross-sectional or retrospective hospital audits, and the overall methodological quality was mainly moderate. Six categories of factors associated with inpatient medical record data quality were identified: clinical documentation and physician-related factors (16 studies), coding staff capacity and professional competence (18 studies), institutional and quality-control mechanisms (19 studies), information-system support (14 studies), training and feedback (20 studies), and external policy or reimbursement pressure (7 studies). The evidence suggests that record quality is shaped by interactions between the data-generation process, coding transformation, organisational governance, technological support, and external incentives.
conclusionThe available evidence suggests that improving inpatient medical record data quality requires coordinated action across clinical documentation, coding capacity, quality-control mechanisms, information systems, training, and the external policy or reimbursement context. However, because much of the evidence comes from cross-sectional studies and is subject to language restrictions and search-field limitations, causal interpretation should remain cautious. This review provides a structured synthesis to inform future empirical studies and hospital quality-improvement work.
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.