Cited by 567Electronic Health Records SystemsMedical Coding and Health InformationMachine Learning in Healthcare

Caveats for the Use of Operational Electronic Health Record Data in Comparative Effectiveness Research

Open access
Hersh, William R., Weiner, Mark G., Embi, Peter J., Logan, Judith R., Payne, Philip R.O., Bernstam, Elmer V., Lehmann, Harold P., Hripcsak, George +3 more·2013·Medical Care

Abstract

The growing amount of data in operational electronic health record systems provides unprecedented opportunity for its reuse for many tasks, including comparative effectiveness research. However, there are many caveats to the use of such data. Electronic health record data from clinical settings may be inaccurate, incomplete, transformed in ways that undermine their meaning, unrecoverable for research, of unknown provenance, of insufficient granularity, and incompatible with research protocols. However, the quantity and real-world nature of these data provide impetus for their use, and we develop a list of caveats to inform would-be users of such data as well as provide an informatics roadmap that aims to insure this opportunity to augment comparative effectiveness research can be best leveraged.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/mlr.0b013e31829b1dbd

Cites

68 of 68 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [6]Smith M Saunders R Stuckhardt L McGinnis JM Best Care at Lower Cost: The Path to Continuously Learning Health Care in America 2012 Washington, DC National Academies Press 24901184
  2. [30]Roebuck C The importance of knowing context of hospital episode statistics when reconfiguring the NHS British Medical Journal 2012 Rapid Response. http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e2432/rr/578977 22491714
  3. [55]Bernstam EV Herskovic JR Reeder P Meric-Bernstam F Oncology research using electronic medical record data Journal of Clinical Oncology 2010 28 suppl e16501 abstr http://www.asco.org/ascov2/Meetings/Abstracts?&vmview=abst_detail_view&confID=74&abstractID=42963

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hersh, W. R., Weiner, M. G., Embi, P. J., Logan, J. R., Payne, P. R. O., Bernstam, E. V., Lehmann, H. P., Hripcsak, G., Hartzog, T. H., Cimino, J. J., & Saltz, J. H.
Affiliations
  • Oregon Health & Science University (US)
  • AstraZeneca (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center (US)
  • The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Columbia University (US)
  • Medical University of South Carolina (US)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • Emory University (US)
Corresponding author
  • Hersh, William R.
  • Logan, Judith R.
  • Cimino, James J.
Venue
Medical Care
Published
2013-08
Volume
51
Issue
Supplement 8Suppl 3
Pages
S30-S37
ISSN
0025-7079 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2137767404
Cited by
567
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 43 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 43 · 2021: 58 · 2020: 50 · 2019: 59 · 2018: 50 · 2017: 45 · 2016: 45 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 6
FWCI
58.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Medical Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR000454, UL1TR000090)
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
  • National Center for Research Resources (UL1RR025008, UL1RR024156, UL1RR025005, UL1RR024148, UL1RR024140)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
  • H2020 European Research Council
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
Keywords
electronic health records, comparative effectiveness research, data quality, data completeness, data provenance, data granularity, data reuse
MeSH terms
Data Collection, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Insurance Claim Review, Research Design, Comparative Effectiveness Research, Electronic Health Records

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