Cited by 33Electronic Health Records SystemsMedical Coding and Health InformationNursing Diagnosis and Documentation

Weighing the Odds: Assessing Underdiagnosis of Adult Obesity via Electronic Medical Record Problem List Omissions

Open access
Kapoor, Akshat, Kim, Juhee, Zeng, Xiaoming, Harris, Susie T, Anderson, Andrew·2020·DIGITAL HEALTH

Abstract

Background: Obesity is a continuing national epidemic, and the condition can have a physical, psychological, as well as social impact on one’s well-being. Consequently, it is critical to diagnose and document obesity accurately in the patient’s electronic medical record (EMR), so that the information can be used and shared to improve clinical decision making and health communication and, in turn, the patient’s prognosis. It is therefore worthwhile identifying the various factors that play a role in documenting obesity diagnosis and the methods to improve current documentation practices. Method: We used a retrospective cross-sectional design to analyze outpatient EMRs of patients at an academic outpatient clinic. Obese patients were identified using the measured body mass index (BMI; ≥30 kg/m 2 ) entry in the EMR, recorded at each visit, and checked for documentation of obesity in the EMR problem list. Patients were categorized into two groups (diagnosed or undiagnosed) based on a documented diagnosis (or omission) of obesity in the EMR problem list and compared. Results: A total of 10,208 unique patient records of obese patients were included for analysis, of which 4119 (40%) did not have any documentation of obesity in their problem list. Chi-square analysis between the diagnosed and undiagnosed groups revealed significant associations between documentation of obesity in the EMR and patient characteristics. Conclusion: EMR designers and developers must consider employing automated decision support techniques to populate and update problem lists based on the existing recorded BMI in the EMR in order to prevent omissions occurring from manual entry.

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 · 10.1177/2055207620918715

Cites

32 of 32 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?

  • Documentation errors, especially data omissions, can influence diagnostic decisions and lead to inappropriate treatments.

    “Documentation errors, especially data omissions, can influence diagnostic decisions and lead to inappropriate treatments [174,175].”

    From Toward Safer Diagnoses: A SEIPS-Based Narrative Review of Diagnostic Errors (2026) · cites this paper as [174]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) says accurate obesity documentation supports clinical decisions about screening, prescribing, and targeted therapies; it also reports that patients whose obesity is documented are more likely to receive treatment and management. The paper examines obesity-related problem-list omissions, but it does not show that documentation errors lead to inappropriate treatments, as opposed to missed or delayed obesity care. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kapoor, A., Kim, J., Zeng, X., Harris, S. T., & Anderson, A.
Affiliations
  • East Carolina University (US)
  • Sungkyunkwan University (KR)
Corresponding author
Kapoor, Akshat
Venue
DIGITAL HEALTH
Published
2020-01
Volume
6
Pages
2055207620918715-2055207620918715
ISSN
2055-2076 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3016260035
Cited by
33
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3
FWCI
1.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Digital Health (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
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 › Nursing › Issues, ethics and legal aspects › Nursing Diagnosis and Documentation
Keywords
adult obesity, underdiagnosis, electronic health records, problem list, clinical documentation, automated clinical decision support, body mass index, patient characteristics

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