The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Influence of the Method of Data Collection on the Documentation of Blood-pressure Readings with an Anesthesia Information Management System (AIMS)
Abstract
The influence of methods for record keeping on the documentation of vital signs was assessed for the Anesthesia Information Management System (AIMS) NarkoData. We compared manually entered blood-pressure readings with automatically collected data. These data were stored in a data-base and subsequently evaluated and analyzed. The data sets were split into two groups, "manual" and "automatic". We evaluated the effect of automatic data collection on the incidence of corrected data, data validity and data variation. Blood-pressure readings of 37,726 data sets were analyzed. We could assess that the method of documentation did influence the data quality. It could not be assessed whether the incorrectness of data during automatic data gathering was caused by artefacts or by the anesthesiologist.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Two other approaches to assessing correctness were using corrections seen in log files as a proxy for correctness, and comparing data on the same patients from a registry and an EHR.
“Two other approaches to were using corrections seen in log files as a proxy for correctness,73 and comparing data on the same patients from a registry and an EHR.90”
From Methods and dimensions of electronic health record data quality assessment: enabling reuse for clinical research (2013) · cites this paper as [73]
The most common approach to assessing plausibility included looking for elements with values outside biologically plausible ranges or that changed implausibly over time or zero-valued elements.
“This included looking for elements with values that were outside biologically plausible ranges or that changed implausibly over time89 or zero-valued elements.73”
From Methods and dimensions of electronic health record data quality assessment: enabling reuse for clinical research (2013) · cites this paper as [73]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Weiskopf, N. G., & Weng, C. (2013) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000681 · Cited by 1,216
Metadata
- Authors
- Junger, A., Quinzio, L., Fuchs, C., Michel, A., Sciuk, G., Marquardt, K., Dudeck, J., Hempelmann, G., & Benson, M.
- Affiliations
- Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Benson, M.
- Venue
- Methods of Information in Medicine
- Publisher
- Georg Thieme Verlag KG
- Published
- 2001
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 03
- Pages
- 190-195
- ISSN
- 0026-1270 (ISSN-L)
- 2511-705X
- OpenAlex
- W327882980
- Cited by
- 23
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 4.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Methods of Information in Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Healthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
- Keywords
- anesthesia information management systems, blood pressure monitoring, vital signs documentation, data quality, data validity, data correction
- MeSH terms
- Anesthesiology, Automation, Blood Pressure, Germany, Humans, Operating Room Information Systems, Quality Assurance, Health Care, Reproducibility of Results, Monitoring, Intraoperative, Medical Records Systems, Computerized
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
