Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40794368›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2025

Are Aggregated Electronic Health Record Datasets Good for Research?

Neal D Goldstein, Brianne Olivieri-Mui, Igor Burstyn

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Assessing HPV Vaccination Trends and Their Alignment with Evolving Recommendations.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

3 authors.

Neal D GoldsteinDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Dornsife School of Public Health, Drexel University, Philadelphia, USA. ng338@drexel.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-9597-5251
Brianne Olivieri-MuiDepartment of Public Health and Health Sciences, Bouve College of Health Sciences, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA.
Igor BurstynDepartment of Environmental and Occupational Health, Dornsife School of Public Health, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Funding

Understanding antiretroviral adherence changes from the community to the nursing homeK01AG077972 · NIA · NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY · PI Brianne Olivieri-Mui · 2022 to 2026
$616k
NIA NIH HHS K01 AG077972NIA NIH HHS K01AG077972
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There has been a proliferation of large-scale electronic health record (EHR) data platforms that pool across multiple healthcare organizations, such as the National Institutes of Health's All of Us in the federal space and TriNetX and Epic Cosmos in the commercial space. There are unique issues that occur when EHR data are aggregated across disparate healthcare systems beyond the general-and more well known-concerns about secondary analysis of EHR data from a single entity. In this article, we define aggregated EHR data, contrasting it to other real-world data sources, highlight benefits and challenges when working with aggregated EHR data, offer several "good practices" to address these challenges, and conclude by discussing whether it is appropriate to pool these data together or not.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchDatasets as TopicElectronic Health RecordsHumansUnited Statesdata aggregationelectronic health recordsquantitative bias analysisvalidity

Identifiers

PMID40794368
PMCPMC12612337

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.