ArticleApplied clinical informatics2025
Discrepancies in Aggregate Patient Data between Two Sources with Data Originating from the Same Electronic Health Record: A Case Study.
Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundData exploration in modern electronic health records (EHRs) is often aided by user-friendly graphical interfaces providing "self-service" tools for end users to extract data for quality improvement, patient safety, and research without prerequisite training in database querying. Other resources within the same institution, such as Honest Brokers, may extract data sourced from the same EHR but obtain different results leading to questions of data completeness and correctness.
objectivesOur objectives were to (1) examine the differences in aggregate output generated by a "self-service" graphical interface data extraction tool and our institution's clinical data warehouse (CDW), sourced from the same database, and (2) examine the causative factors that may have contributed to these differences.
methodsAggregate demographic data of patients who received influenza vaccines at three static clinics and three drive-through clinics in similar locations between August 2020 and December 2020 was extracted separately from our institution's EHR data exploration tool and our CDW by our organization's Honest Brokers System. We reviewed the aggregate outputs, sliced by demographics and vaccination sites, to determine potential differences between the two outputs. We examined the underlying data model, identifying the source of each database.
resultsWe observed discrepancies in patient volumes between the two sources, with variations in demographic information, such as age, race, ethnicity, and primary language. These variations could potentially influence research outcomes and interpretations.
conclusionThis case study underscores the need for a thorough examination of data quality and the implementation of comprehensive user education to ensure accurate data extraction and interpretation. Enhancing data standardization and validation processes is crucial for supporting reliable research and informed decision-making, particularly if demographic data may be used to support targeted efforts for a specific population in research or quality improvement initiatives.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.