Cited by 839Medical Coding and Health InformationElectronic Health Records SystemsSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse

Validation of information recorded on general practitioner based computerised data resource in the United Kingdom.

Open access
Jick, H, Jick, S S, Derby, L E·1991·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent of agreement between clinical information recorded on surgery computers of selected general practitioners and similar information in manual records of letters received from hospital consultants and kept in the general practitioners' files. DESIGN: Hospital consultants' letters in the manual records of selected general practitioners were photocopied and the consultants' clinical diagnoses were compared with diagnoses recorded on computer. SETTING: General practices in the United Kingdom using computers provided by VAMP Health for recording clinical information. SUBJECTS: 2491 patients who received one of three non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and who attended 58 practices whose computer recorded data were considered after a preliminary review to be of satisfactory quality. RESULTS: Among 1191 patients for whom consultants' letters were forwarded a clinical diagnosis reflecting the diagnosis noted on a consultant letter was present on the computer record for 1038 (87%). CONCLUSION: Clinical information available on the computer records of the general practitioners who participated in this study is satisfactory for many clinical studies.

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 · 10.1136/bmj.302.6779.766

Cites

5 of 5 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

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: 2

  1. West R. Saskatchewan health data bases: a developing resource in progress in pharmacoepidemiology. American Journal oJf Preventive Medicine 1988 (suppl):25-7.
  2. Tilson HH. A proactive approach to monitoring for adverse drug reactions. Journal ofClinical Research and Drug Development 1989;3:39-5 1.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jick, H., Jick, S. S., & Derby, L. E.
Affiliations
Boston University (US)
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1991-03-30
Volume
302
Issue
6779
Pages
766-768
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2157604999
Cited by
839
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 34 · 2013: 45 · 2012: 51
FWCI
54.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Pfizer
  • U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FD-U-000071-09)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
Keywords
electronic health records, general practitioners, data validation, hospital-primary care communication, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs
MeSH terms
Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal, Data Collection, Diagnosis, Evaluation Studies as Topic, Family Practice, United Kingdom, Humans, Medical Records, Microcomputers, Safety, Correspondence as Topic, 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