The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Measuring the Completeness and Currency of Codified Clinical Information
Abstract
Objectives The paper describes how an objective score (CCscore) of the 'completeness' and 'currency' of codified clinical information relevant to the management of diabetes mellitus may be derived for individual practices. Methods A questionnaire was developed and administered to 35 practices and statistical methods were used to test for correlation between the prevalence for diabetes mellitus and the relevant CCscores Results No significant correlation could be found. Conclusions The 'quality' of computer-stored information varies widely across English General practices for reasons that are incompletely understood. We demonstrated how CCscores may be calibrated for different 'views' of 'relevance', 'completeness', and 'currency' and yet be consistent across practices for a given 'view'. The potential value of this score and how it may contribute to our understanding of variation in 'information quality' are discussed.
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?
In the citing paper
“In the fourth, researchers considered whether each type of data element was measured recently enough to be considered medically relevant.84”
From Methods and dimensions of electronic health record data quality assessment: enabling reuse for clinical research (2013) · cites this paper as [84]
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
Chan, K. S., Fowles, J. B., & Weiner, J. P. (2010) · Medical Care Research and Review · doi:10.1177/1077558709359007 · Cited by 365
De Lusignan, S., Khunti, K., Belsey, J., Hattersley, A., Van Vlymen, J., Gallagher, H., Millett, C., Hague, N. J., Tomson, C., Harris, K., et al. (2010) · Diabetic Medicine · doi:10.1111/j.1464-5491.2009.02917.x · Cited by 122
Metadata
- Authors
- Williams, J. G.
- Affiliations
- University of Surrey (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Williams, J. G.
- Venue
- Methods of Information in Medicine
- Publisher
- Georg Thieme Verlag KG
- Published
- 2003
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 04
- Pages
- 482-488
- ISSN
- 0026-1270 (ISSN-L)
- 2511-705X
- OpenAlex
- W2410583883
- Cited by
- 18
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 2.97
- 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 › Medical Coding and Health Information
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
- Keywords
- diabetes mellitus, clinical information quality, electronic health records, general practice, data completeness, data currency
- MeSH terms
- Diabetes Mellitus, Family Practice, United Kingdom, Humans, Medical Records, Problem-Oriented, Primary Health Care, Quality Control, Surveys and Questionnaires, Medical Records Systems, Computerized, Benchmarking
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Measuring the Completeness and Currency of Codified Clinical Information. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1055/s-0038-1634243
- The paper
- Williams, J. G. (2003). Measuring the Completeness and Currency of Codified Clinical Information. Methods of Information in Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1634243
