Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38100185›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2023

Use of Epic Electronic Health Record System for Health Care Research: Scoping Review.

Jawad Chishtie, Natalie Sapiro, Natalie Wiebe, Leora Rabatach, Diane Lorenzetti, Alexander A Leung, Doreen Rabi, Hude Quan, Cathy A Eastwood

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

54 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. A problem of Epic proportion.PLOS digital health · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Jawad ChishtieCenter for Health Informatics, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8650-4469
Natalie SapiroCenter for Health Informatics, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9677-6900
Natalie WiebeCenter for Health Informatics, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5567-5468
Leora RabatachBethany Care Society, Calgary, AB, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0016-1459
Diane LorenzettiCommunity Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8423-3458
Alexander A LeungCommunity Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-7536-8497
Doreen RabiCommunity Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5317-3843
Hude QuanCenter for Health Informatics, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-7848-7256
Cathy A EastwoodCenter for Health Informatics, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-4569-8014

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundElectronic health records (EHRs) enable health data exchange across interconnected systems from varied settings. Epic is among the 5 leading EHR providers and is the most adopted EHR system across the globe. Despite its global reach, there is a gap in the literature detailing how EHR systems such as Epic have been used for health care research.

objectiveThe objective of this scoping review is to synthesize the available literature on use cases of the Epic EHR for research in various areas of clinical and health sciences.

methodsWe used established scoping review methods and searched 9 major information repositories, including databases and gray literature sources. To categorize the research data, we developed detailed criteria for 5 major research domains to present the results.

resultsWe present a comprehensive picture of the method types in 5 research domains. A total of 4669 articles were screened by 2 independent reviewers at each stage, while 206 articles were abstracted. Most studies were from the United States, with a sharp increase in volume from the year 2015 onwards. Most articles focused on clinical care, health services research and clinical decision support. Among research designs, most studies used longitudinal designs, followed by interventional studies implemented at single sites in adult populations. Important facilitators and barriers to the use of Epic and EHRs in general were identified. Important lessons to the use of Epic and other EHRs for research purposes were also synthesized.

conclusionsThe Epic EHR provides a wide variety of functions that are helpful toward research in several domains, including clinical and population health, quality improvement, and the development of clinical decision support tools. As Epic is reported to be the most globally adopted EHR, researchers can take advantage of its various system features, including pooled data, integration of modules and developing decision support tools. Such research opportunities afforded by the system can contribute to improving quality of care, building health system efficiencies, and conducting population-level studies. Although this review is limited to the Epic EHR system, the larger lessons are generalizable to other EHRs.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsSoftwareAdultDatabases, FactualElectronicsHealth Services ResearchHumansEHRelectronic health recordelectronic medical recordEMREpichealth carehealth systemresearch

Identifiers

PMID38100185
PMCPMC10757236

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.