ReviewJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA
Accuracy of data in computer-based patient records.
Review in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 140 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
140 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 387 citations in OpenAlex.
- Error rates of data processing methods in clinical research: A systematic review and meta-analysis of manuscripts identified through PubMed.International journal of medical informatics · 2025Pooled it
- Using electronic health record audit logs to study clinical activity: a systematic review of aims, measures, and methods.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2020Pooled it
- Interventions to improve the use of EMRs in primary health care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ health & care informatics · 2019Pooled it
- Computer-assisted versus oral-and-written family history taking for identifying people with elevated risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2011Pooled it
- Computer-assisted versus oral-and-written dietary history taking for diabetes mellitus.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2011Pooled it
- The impact of eHealth on the quality and safety of health care: a systematic overview.PLoS medicine · 2011Pooled it
- Systematic review of scope and quality of electronic patient record data in primary care.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2003Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence-enhanced mapping of the international classification of functioning, disability and health via a mobile app: a randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in public health · 2025Trial
- Development and evaluation of a computable phenotype to identify pediatric patients with leukemia and lymphoma treated with chemotherapy using electronic health record data.Pediatric blood & cancer · 2019Trial
- Using SNOMED CT-encoded problems to improve ICD-10-CM coding-A randomized controlled experiment.International journal of medical informatics · 2019Trial
- Measuring the Quality of Datasets: Development of the IDEFIM Indicator Set for Empirical Health Research.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Data from Routine Primary Healthcare: Opportunities and Threats for Obesity Epidemiological Research.Portuguese journal of public health · 2025Article
- Streamlining data recording through optical character recognition: a prospective multi-center study in intensive care units.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Observational
- With big data comes big responsibility: Strategies for utilizing aggregated, standardized, de-identified electronic health record data for research.Clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- Assessing the Effect of Electronic Health Record Data Quality on Identifying Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2024Article
- The relationship between electronic health records user interface features and data quality of patient clinical information: an integrative review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023Review
- Error Rates of Data Processing Methods in Clinical Research: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Manuscripts Identified Through PubMed.Research square · 2023Article
- Validity of self-reported educational level in the Tromsø Study.Scandinavian journal of public health · 2023Article
- Data from national health registers as endpoints for the Tromsø Study: Correctness and completeness of stroke diagnoses.Scandinavian journal of public health · 2023Article
- Rare Diseases in Hospital Information Systems-An Interoperable Methodology for Distributed Data Quality Assessments.Methods of information in medicine · 2023Article
80 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Data in computer-based patient records (CPRs) have many uses beyond their primary role in patient care, including research and health-system management. Although the accuracy of CPR data directly affects these applications, there has been only sporadic interest in, and no previous review of, data accuracy in CPRs. This paper reviews the published studies of data accuracy in CPRs. These studies report highly variable levels of accuracy. This variability stems from differences in study design, in types of data studied, and in the CPRs themselves. These differences confound interpretation of this literature. We conclude that our knowledge of data accuracy in CPRs is not commensurate with its importance and further studies are needed. We propose methodological guidelines for studying accuracy that address shortcomings of the current literature. As CPR data are used increasingly for research, methods used in research databases to continuously monitor and improve accuracy should be applied to CPRs.
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.