CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 389Electronic Health Records SystemsMedical Coding and Health InformationData Quality and Management

Accuracy of Data in Computer-based Patient Records

Open access
Hogan, W. R., Wagner, M. M.·1997·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
DOI 10.1136/jamia.1997.0040342PMC PMC61252
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

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.

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/jamia.1997.0040342

Cites

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?

  • Hogan and Wagner suggested specific statistical measures of the correctness and completeness of EHR elements that have been adopted by other researchers.

    “Hogan and Wagner8 suggested specific statistical measures of the correctness and completeness of EHR elements that have been adopted by other researchers.”

    From Methods and dimensions of electronic health record data quality assessment: enabling reuse for clinical research (2013) · cites this paper as [8]

    The Methodological Recommendations section (page not provided) defines correctness and completeness as specific proportions and recommends that future studies report numerical measures of both. The paper does not establish the claim that other researchers subsequently adopted those measures. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • A substantial body of research suggests that data collected in EHRs and other operational systems may not be of sufficient quality for research.

    “A substantial body of research suggests that data collected in EHRs and other operational systems may not be of sufficient quality for research.28–37”

    From A harmonized data quality assessment terminology and framework for the secondary use of electronic health record data (2016) · cites this paper as [28]

    The Quality of the Literature section identifies inaccurate computer-based patient record data as a concern for clinical research. But the Accuracy of Data in CPRs section says the studies were too variable to determine whether data accuracy was poor, fair, good, or excellent. The review also addresses patient records, not other operational systems, so it supports the concern but not the full breadth of the claim. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Hogan and Wagner's 1997 literature review found that the correctness of data ranged between 44% and 100%, and completeness between 1.1% and 100%, depending on the clinical concepts being studied.

    “Hogan and Wagner,8 in their 1997 literature review, found that the correctness of data ranged between 44% and 100%, and completeness between 1.1% and 100%, depending on the clinical concepts being studied.”

    From Methods and dimensions of electronic health record data quality assessment: enabling reuse for clinical research (2013) · cites this paper as [8]

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 34

  1. Leape LL, Bates DW, Cullen DJ, et al. Systems analysis of adverse drug events. ADE Prevention Study Group. JAMA. 1995;274:35 -43.
  2. Johnson N, Mant D, Jones L, Randall T. Use of computerised general practice data for population surveillance: compar- ative study of influenza data. BMJ. 1991;302:763 -5.
  3. Wilton R, Pennisi AJ. Evaluating the accuracy of transcribed computer-stored immunization data. Pediatrics. 1994;94: 902 -6.
  4. Hogan WR, Wagner MM. Using belief networks to enhance sharing of medical knowledge between sites with variations in data accuracy. Proc. of AMIA Annu Fall Symp. Philadel- phia: Hanley & Belfus, 1995, 218 -22.
  5. Komaroff AL. The variability and inaccuracy of medical data. Proc IEEE. 1979;67:1196 -1207.
  6. Koran LM. The reliability of clinical methods, data and judgments (first of two parts). N Engl J Med. 1975;293: 642 -6.
  7. Koran LM. The reliability of clinical methods, data and judgments (second of two parts). N Engl J Med. 1975;293: 695 -701.
  8. Romm FJ, Putnam SM. The validity of the medical record. Med Care. 1981;19:310 -5.
  9. Zuckerman ZE, Starfield B, Hochreiter C, Kovasznay B. Val- idating the content of pediatric outpatient medical records by means of tape-recording doctor -patient encounters. Pe- diatrics. 1975;56:407 -11.
  10. Parkin DM, Muir CS. Cancer incidence in five continents: comparability and quality of data. IARC Scientific Publica- tions. 1992;120:45 -173.
  11. Goldberg J, Gelfand HM, Levy PS. Registry evaluation methods: a review and case study. Epidemiol Rev. 1980;2: 210 -20.
  12. Bentsen BG. The accuracy of recording patient problems in family practice. J Med Educ. 1976;51:311 -6.
  13. Institute of Medicine: The computer-based patient record: an essential technology for health care. Dick RS, Steen EB (eds). Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1991.
  14. Jelovsek F, Hammond W. Formal error rate in a computer- ized obstetric medical record. Methods Inf Med. 1978;17: 151 -7.
  15. Fortinsky RH, Gutman JD. A two-phase study of the reli- ability of computerized morbidity data. J Fam Pract. 1981; 13:229 -35.
  16. Jones R, Hedley A. A computer in the diabetic clinic: com- pleteness of data in a clinical information system for dia- betes. Practical Diabetes. 1986;3:295 -6.
  17. Maresh M, Dawson AM, Beard RW. Assessment of an on- line computerized perinatal data collection and information system. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1986;93:1239 -45.
  18. Dambro MR, Weiss BD. Assessing the quality of data entry in a computerized medical records system. J Med Syst. 1988; 12:181 -7.
  19. Block B, Brennan JA. Reliability of morbidity data in a com- puterized medical record system. In: Hammond WE (ed). Proceedings of the AAMSI Congress 89. Eighth Annual Na- tional Congress, 1989:21 -30.
  20. Gouveia-Oliveira A, Raposo VD, Salgado NC, Almeida I, Nobre-Leitao C, de Melo FG. Longitudinal comparative study on the influence of computers on reporting of clinical data. Endoscopy. 1991;23:334 -7.
  21. Kuhn K, Swobodnik W, Johannes RS, et al. The quality of gastroenterological reports based on free text dictation: an evaluation in endoscopy and ultrasonography. Endoscopy. 1991;23:262 -4.
  22. Barrie JL, Marsh DR. Quality of data in the Manchester Or- thopaedic Database. Br Med J. 1992;304:159 -62.
  23. Kuhn K, Gaus W, Wechsler JG, et al. Structured reporting of medical findings: evaluation of a system in gastroenter- ology. Methods Inf Med. 1992;31:268 -74.
  24. Edsall DW, Deshane P, Giles C, Dick D, Sloan B, Farrow J. Computerized patient anesthesia records: less time and bet- ter quality than manually produced anesthesia records. J Clin Anesth. 1993;5:275 -83.
  25. Payne T, Kanvik S, Seward R, et al. Development and val- idation of an immunization tracking system in a large health maintenance organization. Am J Prev Med. 1993;9: 96 -100.
  26. Ricketts D, Newey M, Patterson M, Hitchin D, Fowler S. Markers of data quality in computer audit: the Manchester Orthopaedic Database. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1993;75:393 - 6.
  27. Hohnloser JH, Fischer MR, Konig A, Emmerich B. Data quality in computerized patient records: analysis of a hae- matology biopsy report database. Int J Clin Monit Comput. 1994;11:233 -40.
  28. Pringle M, Ward P, Chilvers C. Assessment of the complete- ness and accuracy of computer medical records in four practices committed to recording data on computer. Br J Gen Pract. 1995;45:537 -41.
  29. Yarnall KS, Michener JL, Broadhead WE, Hammond WE, Tse CK. Computer-prompted diagnostic codes. J Fam Pract. 1995;40:257 -62.
  30. Wagner MM, Hogan WR. The accuracy of medication data in an outpatient electronic medical record. J Am Med In- form Assoc. 1996;3:234 -44.
  31. Horbar JD, Leahy KA. An assessment of data quality in the Vermont -Oxford Trials Network database. Controlled Clin Trials. 1995;16:51 -61.
  32. Neaton JD, Duchene AG, Svendsen KH, Wentworth D. An examination of the efficiency of some quality assurance methods commonly employed in clinical trials. Stat Med. 1990;9:115 -23; discussion 124.
  33. Pollock BH. Quality assurance for interventions in clinical trials: multicenter data monitoring, data management, and analysis. Cancer. 1994;74:2647 -52.
  34. Vantongelen K, Rotmensz N, van der Schueren E. Quality control of validity of data collected in clinical trials. EORTC Study Group on Data Management (SGDM). European Journal of Cancer & Clinical Oncology. 1989;25:1241 -7.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hogan, W. R., & Wagner, M. M.
Affiliations
University of Pittsburgh (US)
Corresponding author
Hogan, W. R.
ORCID
Hogan, W. R.
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
1997-09-01
Volume
4
Issue
5
Pages
342-355
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
DOI
10.1136/jamia.1997.0040342
PMC
PMC61252
OpenAlex
W2135774024
Cited by
389
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 26
FWCI
2.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
U.S. National Library of Medicine (LM07059-10, T15LM007059)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Data Quality and Management
Keywords
computer-based patient records, data accuracy, electronic health records, data quality, research databases, health services administration, methodological recommendations, data validation
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Forms and Records Control, Humans, Quality Control, Research Design, United States, Medical Records Systems, Computerized, Guidelines as Topic

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