↓ Skip to main content

Quality of EHR data extractions for studies of preterm birth in a tertiary care center: guidelines for obtaining reliable data

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pediatrics, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

Readers on

mendeley
64 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Quality of EHR data extractions for studies of preterm birth in a tertiary care center: guidelines for obtaining reliable data
Published in
BMC Pediatrics, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12887-016-0592-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lindsey A. Knake, Monika Ahuja, Erin L. McDonald, Kelli K. Ryckman, Nancy Weathers, Todd Burstain, John M. Dagle, Jeffrey C. Murray, Prakash Nadkarni

Abstract

The use of Electronic Health Records (EHR) has increased significantly in the past 15 years. This study compares electronic vs. manual data abstractions from an EHR for accuracy. While the dataset is limited to preterm birth data, our work is generally applicable. We enumerate challenges to reliable extraction, and state guidelines to maximize reliability. An Epic™ EHR data extraction of structured data values from 1,772 neonatal records born between the years 2001-2011 was performed. The data were directly compared to a manually-abstracted database. Specific data values important to studies of perinatology were chosen to compare discrepancies between the two databases. Discrepancy rates between the EHR extraction and the manual database were calculated for gestational age in weeks (2.6 %), birthweight (9.7 %), first white blood cell count (3.2 %), initial hemoglobin (11.9 %), peak total and direct bilirubin (11.4 % and 4.9 %), and patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) diagnosis (12.8 %). Using the discrepancies, errors were quantified in both datasets using chart review. The EHR extraction errors were significantly fewer than manual abstraction errors for PDA and laboratory values excluding neonates transferred from outside hospitals, but significantly greater for birth weight. Reasons for the observed errors are discussed. We show that an EHR not modified specifically for research purposes had discrepancy ranges comparable to a manually created database. We offer guidelines to minimize EHR extraction errors in future study designs. As EHRs become more research-friendly, electronic chart extractions should be more efficient and have lower error rates compared to manual abstractions.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 63 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 14%
Student > Master 8 13%
Other 7 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Researcher 7 11%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 19 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 31%
Computer Science 10 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 21 33%