ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2025
Optimizing the efficiency and effectiveness of data quality assurance in a multicenter clinical dataset.
Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Developing Resident-Sensitive Quality Measures for Internal Medicine.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Opportunities for improving platelet transfusion practice: A large retrospective audit across 22 hospitals.British journal of haematology · 2026Article
- Characteristics and Outcomes of Adults Hospitalized With Childhood-Onset Complex Chronic Conditions.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Red Cell Transfusion in General Medicine Patients at Teaching and Non-teaching Hospitals: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- Rising transfusion rates amidst stable blood supply: A Canadian perspective on emerging challenges for blood operators.Transfusion · 2025Article
- Canadian donations and transfusion database (CANDAT): From blood donors to transfusion recipients.Transfusion · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesElectronic health records (EHRs) data are increasingly used for research and analysis, but there is little empirical evidence to inform how automated and manual assessments can be combined to efficiently assess data quality in large EHR repositories. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe GEMINI database collected data from 462 226 patient admissions across 32 hospitals from 2021 to 2023. We report data quality issues identified through semi-automated and manual data quality assessments completed during the data collection phase. We conducted a simulation experiment to evaluate the relationship between the number of records reviewed manually, the detection of true data errors (true positives) and the number of manual chart abstraction errors (false positives) that required unnecessary investigation.
resultsThe semi-automated data quality assessments identified 79 data quality issues requiring correction, of which 14 had a large impact, affecting at least 50% of records in the data. After resolving issues identified through semi-automated assessments, manual validation of 2676 patient encounters at 19 hospitals identified 4 new meaningful data errors (3 in transfusion data and 1 in physician identifiers), distributed across 4 hospitals. There were 365 manual chart abstraction errors, which required investigation by data analysts to identify as "false positives." These errors increased linearly with the number of charts reviewed manually. Simulation results demonstrate that all 3 transfusion data errors were identified with 95% sensitivity after manual review of 5 records, whereas 18 records were needed for the physician's table. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionThe GEMINI approach represents a scalable framework for data quality assessment and improvement in multisite EHR research databases. Manual data review is important but can be minimized to optimize the trade-off between true and false identification of data quality errors.
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.