Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40079834›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2025

Optimizing the efficiency and effectiveness of data quality assurance in a multicenter clinical dataset.

Anne Fu, Trong Shen, Surain B Roberts, Weihan Liu, Shruthi Vaidyanathan, Kayley-Jasmin Marchena-Romero, Yuen Yu Phyllis Lam, Kieran Shah, Denise Y F Mak, GEMINI Investigators and 2 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

12 authors.

Anne FuLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON M5C 3G7, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-3886-1853
Trong ShenLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON M5C 3G7, Canada.
Surain B RobertsLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON M5C 3G7, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8792-2240
Weihan LiuLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON M5C 3G7, Canada.
Shruthi VaidyanathanLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON M5C 3G7, Canada.
Kayley-Jasmin Marchena-RomeroLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON M5C 3G7, Canada.
Yuen Yu Phyllis LamLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON M5C 3G7, Canada.
Kieran ShahLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON M5C 3G7, Canada.
Denise Y F MakLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON M5C 3G7, Canada.
GEMINI Investigators
Fahad RazakLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON M5C 3G7, Canada.
Amol A VermaLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON M5C 3G7, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-6857-931X

Funding

AI Research and Education in MedicineCanada Research Chairs ProgramGEMINIOntario General Medicine Quality Improvement NetworkOntario HealthUnity Health Toronto
6 · The paper itself

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

Data AccuracyElectronic Health RecordsDatabases, FactualDatasets as TopicHumansclinical databasesdata extractiondata qualitydata validationelectronic health recordselectronic medical records

Identifiers

PMID40079834
PMCPMC12012372

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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.