Cited by 153Electronic Health Records SystemsMedical Coding and Health InformationData Quality and Management

A Data Quality Assessment Guideline for Electronic Health Record Data Reuse

Open access
Weiskopf, Nicole G., Bakken, Suzanne, Hripcsak, George, Weng, Chunhua·2017·eGEMs (Generating Evidence & Methods to improve patient outcomes)

Abstract

Introduction: We describe the formulation, development, and initial expert review of 3x3 Data Quality Assessment (DQA), a dynamic, evidence-based guideline to enable electronic health record (EHR) data quality assessment and reporting for clinical research.Methods: 3x3 DQA was developed through the triangulation results from three studies: a review of the literature on EHR data quality assessment, a quantitative study of EHR data completeness, and a set of interviews with clinical researchers. Following initial development, the guideline was reviewed by a panel of EHR data quality experts.Results: The guideline embraces the task-dependent nature of data quality and data quality assessment. The core framework includes three constructs of data quality: complete, correct, and current data. These constructs are operationalized according to the three primary dimensions of EHR data: patients, variables, and time. Each of the nine operationalized constructs maps to a methodological recommendation for EHR data quality assessment. The initial expert response to the framework was positive, but improvements are required.Discussion: The initial version of 3x3 DQA promises to enable explicit guideline-based best practices for EHR data quality assessment and reporting. Future work will focus on increasing clarity on how and when 3x3 DQA should be used during the research process, improving the feasibility and ease-of-use of recommendation execution, and clarifying the process for users to determine which operationalized constructs and recommendations are relevant for a given dataset and study.

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 · 10.5334/egems.218

Cites

37 of 37 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?

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

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [5]Juran JM, Gryna FM. Juran’s quality control handbook 4th ed New York: McGraw-Hill; 1988.
  2. [26]Grant J, Davis L. Selection and use of content experts for instrument development. Research in Nursing & Health. 1997; 20(3): 269– 74. 9179180

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Weiskopf, N. G., Bakken, S., Hripcsak, G., & Weng, C.
Affiliations
  • Oregon Health & Science University (US)
  • Columbia University (US)
Venue
eGEMs (Generating Evidence & Methods to improve patient outcomes)
Published
2017-09-04
Volume
5
Issue
1
Pages
14
ISSN
2327-9214 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2752570039
Cited by
152
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 2
FWCI
10.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • eGEMs (Generating Evidence & Methods to improve patient outcomes) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
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
electronic health records, data quality assessment, data reuse, clinical research data, data completeness, data correctness, data timeliness, data quality reporting, research guidelines, expert review

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