ArticleJAMIA open2026
Assessing the quality of electronic health record data and the claims linked data for target trial emulation studies.
Article in JAMIA open, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate whether an electronic health record (EHR) cohort has sufficient data quality to support target trial emulation design elements, using Medicare claims as a reference for billing-derived domains and linked EHR-claims data to illustrate the incremental value of linkage. Materials and Methods: We constructed annual University of Florida Health EHR-Medicare linked cohorts of patients ≥65 years with type 2 diabetes (T2D) from 2013 to 2020. Using Medicare claims as the reference, we assessed EHR data quality for target trial emulation-relevant elements across completeness, accuracy, plausibility, and concordance, spanning eligibility, exposure/new-user ascertainment, baseline covariates, outcomes, and follow-up. We also descriptively compared capture of target trial emulation elements across EHR-only, claims-only, and linked data. Results: The mean annual EHR-Medicare linked cohort included 12 895 patients (mean age 74.9 years; 58.0% female). Demographics were complete and highly accurate. In the EHR-only cohort, completeness ranged 34.1%-78.4% for conditions and 53.7%-63.4% for glucose-lowering drugs (GLDs). Accuracy was high for prevalent conditions and GLD use but low for incident measures. Plausible values were common (>98.5%), and hemoglobin A1c-T2D concordance was strong (98.6%). Linking EHR and claims substantially improved completeness and accuracy, especially for encounters, mortality, incident diagnoses, and medications. Discussion: The linked dataset addressed major limitations of EHR-only data and provided enhanced granularity compared to claims alone, offering a comprehensive resource for real-world target trial emulation research. Conclusion: Electronic health records offer valuable clinical details but face data quality challenges. Robust quality assurance strategies and linkage with external data are essential to strengthen real-world evidence and support target trial emulation.
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.