The DOI matches its Crossref record.
VHA Corporate Data Warehouse height and weight data: Opportunities and challenges for health services research
Abstract
Within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), anthropometric measurements entered into the electronic medical record are stored in local information systems, the national Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW), and in some regional data warehouses. This article describes efforts to examine the quality of weight and height data within the CDW and to compare CDW data with data from warehouses maintained by several of VHA's regional groupings of healthcare facilities (Veterans Integrated Service Networks [VISNs]). We found significantly fewer recorded heights than weights in both the CDW and VISN data sources. In spite of occasional anomalies, the concordance in the number and value of records in the CDW and the VISN warehouses was generally 97% to 99% or greater. Implausible variation in same-day and same-year heights and weights was noted, suggesting measurement or data-entry errors. Our work suggests that the CDW, over time and through validation, has become a generally reliable source of anthropometric data. Researchers should assess the reliability of data contained within any source and apply strategies to minimize the impact of data errors appropriate to their study population.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
The most common approach to assessing plausibility included looking for elements with values outside biologically plausible ranges or that changed implausibly over time or zero-valued elements.
“This included looking for elements with values that were outside biologically plausible ranges or that changed implausibly over time89 or zero-valued elements.73”
From Methods and dimensions of electronic health record data quality assessment: enabling reuse for clinical research (2013) · cites this paper as [89]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Weiskopf, N. G., & Weng, C. (2013) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000681 · Cited by 1,216
Evaluation of a weight management program for veterans
Littman, A., Boyko, E., McDonell, M., & Fihn, S. (2012) · Preventing Chronic Disease · doi:10.5888/pcd9.110267 · Cited by 87
Metadata
- Authors
- Nol, P. H., Copeland, L. A., Perrin, R. A., Lancaster, A. E., Pugh, M. J., Wang, C.-P., Bollinger, M. J., & Hazuda, H. P.
- Affiliations
- The University of Texas at San Antonio (US)
- United States Department of Veterans Affairs (US)
- Venue
- The Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development
- Published
- 2010
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 739
- ISSN
- 0742-3241 (ISSN-L)
- 0748-7711
- OpenAlex
- W2123627029
- Cited by
- 77
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 6.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Data Quality and Management
- Keywords
- Veterans Health Administration, corporate data warehouse, anthropometry, height and weight measurement, data quality, data validation, Veterans Integrated Service Networks, electronic health records, data entry errors
- MeSH terms
- Body Height, Body Weight, Health Services Research, Humans, United States, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Body Mass Index, Electronic Health Records, Veterans Health
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