Cited by 49Medical Coding and Health InformationElectronic Health Records SystemsBone health and osteoporosis research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Problems with primary care data quality: osteoporosis as an exemplar

Open access
DeLusignan, Simon, Valentin, Tom, Chan, Tom, Hague, Nigel, Wood, Oliver, VanVlymen, Jeremy, Dhoul, Neil·2004·Journal of Innovation in Health Informatics

Abstract

Objective To report problems implementing a data quality programme in osteoporosis. Design Analysis of data extracted using Morbidity Information Query and Export Syntax (MIQUEST) from participating general practices' systems and recommendations of practitioners who attended an action research workshop. Setting Computerised general practices using different Read code versions to record structured data. Participants 78 practices predominantly from London and the south east, with representation from north east, north west and south west England. Main outcome measures Patients at risk can be represented in many ways within structured data. Although fracture data exists, it is unclear which are fragility fractures. T-scores, the gold standard for measuring bone density, cannot be extracted using the UK's standard data extraction tool, MIQUEST; instead manual searches had to be implemented. There is a hundredfold variation in data recording levels between practices. Therapy is more frequently recorded than diagnosis. A multidisciplinary forum of experienced practitioners proposed that a limited list of codes should be used. Conclusions There is variability in inter-practice data quality. Some clinically important codes are lacking, and there are multiple ways that the same clinical concept can be represented. Different practice computer systems have different versions of Read code, making some data incompatible. Manual searching is still required to find data. Clinicians with an u…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.14236/jhi.v12i3.120

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Other methods for assessing completeness included agreement between elements from the same source, agreement between the EHR and paper records, agreement between the EHR and another electronic source, and comparing distributions of occurrences between practices or with nationally recorded rates.

    “Other methods for assessing completeness included looking at agreement between elements from the same source,49–55 56 agreement between the EHR and paper records,79 87 88 agreement between the EHR and another electronic source of data,79 89 and comparing distributions of occurrences of certain elements between practices97 or with nationally recorded rates.98–100”

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
DeLusignan, S., Valentin, T., Chan, T., Hague, N., Wood, O., VanVlymen, J., & Dhoul, N.
Venue
Journal of Innovation in Health Informatics
Publisher
Portico
Published
2004
Volume
12
Issue
3
Pages
147-156
ISSN
  • 1475-9985 (ISSN-L)
  • 2058-4555
OpenAlex
W2019804495
Cited by
49
References
18
Citations by year
2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
12.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-sa
Locations
  • Journal of Innovation in Health Informatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Surrey Research Insight Open Access (The University of Surrey) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Journal of Innovation in Health Informatics (BCS, The Chartered Institute for IT) (submittedVersion)
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 › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Bone health and osteoporosis research
Keywords
osteoporosis, Read codes, structured clinical data, fragility fractures, T-score, bone mineral density, data extraction, medical coding
MeSH terms
Accidental Falls, Adult, Aged, England, Family Practice, Female, Humans, Terminology as Topic, Osteoporosis, Quality Control, 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