Electronic Health Record Data Quality and Performance Assessments: Scoping Review.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 MEDICAL INFORMATICS
Yordan P Penev, Timothy R Buchanan, Matthew M Ruppert, Michelle Liu, Ramin Shekouhi, Ziyuan Guan, Jeremy Balch, Tezcan Ozrazgat-Baslanti, Benjamin Shickel, Tyler J Loftus, Azra Bihorac
{"title":"Electronic Health Record Data Quality and Performance Assessments: Scoping Review.","authors":"Yordan P Penev, Timothy R Buchanan, Matthew M Ruppert, Michelle Liu, Ramin Shekouhi, Ziyuan Guan, Jeremy Balch, Tezcan Ozrazgat-Baslanti, Benjamin Shickel, Tyler J Loftus, Azra Bihorac","doi":"10.2196/58130","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Electronic health records (EHRs) have an enormous potential to advance medical research and practice through easily accessible and interpretable EHR-derived databases. Attainability of this potential is limited by issues with data quality (DQ) and performance assessment.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This review aims to streamline the current best practices on EHR DQ and performance assessments as a replicable standard for researchers in the field.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed was systematically searched for original research articles assessing EHR DQ and performance from inception until May 7, 2023.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our search yielded 26 original research articles. Most articles had 1 or more significant limitations, including incomplete or inconsistent reporting (n=6, 30%), poor replicability (n=5, 25%), and limited generalizability of results (n=5, 25%). Completeness (n=21, 81%), conformance (n=18, 69%), and plausibility (n=16, 62%) were the most cited indicators of DQ, while correctness or accuracy (n=14, 54%) was most cited for data performance, with context-specific supplementation by recency (n=7, 27%), fairness (n=6, 23%), stability (n=4, 15%), and shareability (n=2, 8%) assessments. Artificial intelligence-based techniques, including natural language data extraction, data imputation, and fairness algorithms, were demonstrated to play a rising role in improving both dataset quality and performance.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This review highlights the need for incentivizing DQ and performance assessments and their standardization. The results suggest the usefulness of artificial intelligence-based techniques for enhancing DQ and performance to unlock the full potential of EHRs to improve medical research and practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":56334,"journal":{"name":"JMIR Medical Informatics","volume":"12 ","pages":"e58130"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11559435/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR Medical Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/58130","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICAL INFORMATICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Electronic health records (EHRs) have an enormous potential to advance medical research and practice through easily accessible and interpretable EHR-derived databases. Attainability of this potential is limited by issues with data quality (DQ) and performance assessment.

Objective: This review aims to streamline the current best practices on EHR DQ and performance assessments as a replicable standard for researchers in the field.

Methods: PubMed was systematically searched for original research articles assessing EHR DQ and performance from inception until May 7, 2023.

Results: Our search yielded 26 original research articles. Most articles had 1 or more significant limitations, including incomplete or inconsistent reporting (n=6, 30%), poor replicability (n=5, 25%), and limited generalizability of results (n=5, 25%). Completeness (n=21, 81%), conformance (n=18, 69%), and plausibility (n=16, 62%) were the most cited indicators of DQ, while correctness or accuracy (n=14, 54%) was most cited for data performance, with context-specific supplementation by recency (n=7, 27%), fairness (n=6, 23%), stability (n=4, 15%), and shareability (n=2, 8%) assessments. Artificial intelligence-based techniques, including natural language data extraction, data imputation, and fairness algorithms, were demonstrated to play a rising role in improving both dataset quality and performance.

Conclusions: This review highlights the need for incentivizing DQ and performance assessments and their standardization. The results suggest the usefulness of artificial intelligence-based techniques for enhancing DQ and performance to unlock the full potential of EHRs to improve medical research and practice.

电子健康记录数据质量和性能评估:范围审查。
背景:电子健康记录(EHR)具有巨大潜力,可通过易于访问和解释的 EHR 衍生数据库推动医学研究和实践。但由于数据质量(DQ)和性能评估方面的问题,这一潜力的实现受到了限制:本综述旨在简化当前电子病历数据质量和性能评估的最佳实践,为该领域的研究人员提供一个可复制的标准:方法:系统检索了 PubMed 上从开始到 2023 年 5 月 7 日评估电子病历质量和性能的原创研究文章:结果:我们搜索到 26 篇原创研究文章。大多数文章存在一个或多个重大局限性,包括报告不完整或不一致(6 篇,占 30%)、可复制性差(5 篇,占 25%)以及结果的推广性有限(5 篇,占 25%)。完整性(n=21,81%)、一致性(n=18,69%)和可信度(n=16,62%)是被引用最多的 DQ 指标,而正确性或准确性(n=14,54%)则是被引用最多的数据性能指标,并根据具体情况辅以重复性(n=7,27%)、公平性(n=6,23%)、稳定性(n=4,15%)和可共享性(n=2,8%)评估。基于人工智能的技术,包括自然语言数据提取、数据估算和公平性算法,在提高数据集质量和性能方面发挥了越来越重要的作用:本综述强调了激励数据质量和性能评估及其标准化的必要性。结果表明,基于人工智能的技术在提高数据质量和性能方面非常有用,可以充分释放电子病历在改善医学研究和实践方面的潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
JMIR Medical Informatics
JMIR Medical Informatics Medicine-Health Informatics
CiteScore
7.90
自引率
3.10%
发文量
173
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: JMIR Medical Informatics (JMI, ISSN 2291-9694) is a top-rated, tier A journal which focuses on clinical informatics, big data in health and health care, decision support for health professionals, electronic health records, ehealth infrastructures and implementation. It has a focus on applied, translational research, with a broad readership including clinicians, CIOs, engineers, industry and health informatics professionals. Published by JMIR Publications, publisher of the Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR), the leading eHealth/mHealth journal (Impact Factor 2016: 5.175), JMIR Med Inform has a slightly different scope (emphasizing more on applications for clinicians and health professionals rather than consumers/citizens, which is the focus of JMIR), publishes even faster, and also allows papers which are more technical or more formative than what would be published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信