比较澳大利亚和加拿大初级保健电子健康记录数据的质量:骨关节炎病例研究。

IF 5.8 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Sharmala Thuraisingam, D Himasara Marasinghe, Kendra Barrick, Fariba Aghajafari, Jo-Anne Manski-Nankervis, Michelle M Dowsey, Hude Quan, Tyler Williamson, Stephanie Garies
{"title":"比较澳大利亚和加拿大初级保健电子健康记录数据的质量:骨关节炎病例研究。","authors":"Sharmala Thuraisingam, D Himasara Marasinghe, Kendra Barrick, Fariba Aghajafari, Jo-Anne Manski-Nankervis, Michelle M Dowsey, Hude Quan, Tyler Williamson, Stephanie Garies","doi":"10.2196/69631","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>General practice electronic health records (EHRs) contain a wealth of patient information. However, these data are collected for clinical purposes. Hence, questions remain around the suitability of using these data for other purposes, including epidemiological research, developing and validating clinical prediction models, conducting audits, and informing policy.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to compare the quality of osteoarthritis-related data in Australian and Canadian general practice EHRs for externally validating a clinical prediction model for total knee replacement surgery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A data quality assessment was conducted on 201,462 patient general practice EHRs from Australia provided by National Prescribing Service MedicineWise, and 92,425 from Canada provided by the Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network. Completeness, plausibility, and external validity of data elements relevant to osteoarthritis were assessed. Completeness and plausibility were evaluated using counts and proportions. For external validity, prevalence was estimated using proportions, and knee replacement summarized as a rate per 100,000 population.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were minimal incomplete and implausible data fields for age and sex (<1%), geographic location (<5%), and commonly cooccurring comorbidities (<10%) in both datasets. However, weight, height, BMI, and Canadian Index of Multiple Deprivation contained >50% missing data. The recording of osteoarthritis by age and sex in both datasets were similar to national estimates, except for patients aged >80 years (Australia: 16.6%, 95% CI 16%-17.3% vs 13.1%, 95% CI 11.2%-15.4%; Canada: 36.7%, 95% CI 36.1%-37.2% vs 50.8%, 95% CI 50.7%-50.9%). Total knee replacement rates were substantially lower in both EHR datasets compared with national estimates (Australia: 72 vs 218 per 100,000; Canada: 0.84 vs 200 per 100,000).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Age, sex, geographic location, commonly cooccurring comorbidities, and prescribing of osteoarthritis medications in Australian and Canadian general practice EHRs are suitable for use in clinical prediction model validation studies. However, BMI and the Canadian Index of Multiple Deprivation are unfit for such use due to large proportions of missing data. Rates of total knee replacement surgery were substantially underreported and should not be used for prediction model validation. Better harmonization of patient data across primary and tertiary care is required to improve the suitability of these data. In the meantime, data linkage with national registries and other health datasets may overcome some of the data quality challenges in general practice EHRs.</p>","PeriodicalId":16337,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Internet Research","volume":"27 ","pages":"e69631"},"PeriodicalIF":5.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12271963/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing the Quality of Primary Care Electronic Health Record Data in Australia and Canada: Case Study in Osteoarthritis.\",\"authors\":\"Sharmala Thuraisingam, D Himasara Marasinghe, Kendra Barrick, Fariba Aghajafari, Jo-Anne Manski-Nankervis, Michelle M Dowsey, Hude Quan, Tyler Williamson, Stephanie Garies\",\"doi\":\"10.2196/69631\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>General practice electronic health records (EHRs) contain a wealth of patient information. However, these data are collected for clinical purposes. Hence, questions remain around the suitability of using these data for other purposes, including epidemiological research, developing and validating clinical prediction models, conducting audits, and informing policy.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to compare the quality of osteoarthritis-related data in Australian and Canadian general practice EHRs for externally validating a clinical prediction model for total knee replacement surgery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A data quality assessment was conducted on 201,462 patient general practice EHRs from Australia provided by National Prescribing Service MedicineWise, and 92,425 from Canada provided by the Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network. Completeness, plausibility, and external validity of data elements relevant to osteoarthritis were assessed. Completeness and plausibility were evaluated using counts and proportions. For external validity, prevalence was estimated using proportions, and knee replacement summarized as a rate per 100,000 population.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were minimal incomplete and implausible data fields for age and sex (<1%), geographic location (<5%), and commonly cooccurring comorbidities (<10%) in both datasets. However, weight, height, BMI, and Canadian Index of Multiple Deprivation contained >50% missing data. The recording of osteoarthritis by age and sex in both datasets were similar to national estimates, except for patients aged >80 years (Australia: 16.6%, 95% CI 16%-17.3% vs 13.1%, 95% CI 11.2%-15.4%; Canada: 36.7%, 95% CI 36.1%-37.2% vs 50.8%, 95% CI 50.7%-50.9%). Total knee replacement rates were substantially lower in both EHR datasets compared with national estimates (Australia: 72 vs 218 per 100,000; Canada: 0.84 vs 200 per 100,000).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Age, sex, geographic location, commonly cooccurring comorbidities, and prescribing of osteoarthritis medications in Australian and Canadian general practice EHRs are suitable for use in clinical prediction model validation studies. However, BMI and the Canadian Index of Multiple Deprivation are unfit for such use due to large proportions of missing data. Rates of total knee replacement surgery were substantially underreported and should not be used for prediction model validation. Better harmonization of patient data across primary and tertiary care is required to improve the suitability of these data. In the meantime, data linkage with national registries and other health datasets may overcome some of the data quality challenges in general practice EHRs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16337,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Medical Internet Research\",\"volume\":\"27 \",\"pages\":\"e69631\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12271963/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Medical Internet Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2196/69631\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Internet Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/69631","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:全科实践电子健康记录(EHRs)包含丰富的患者信息。然而,这些数据是为了临床目的而收集的。因此,围绕将这些数据用于其他目的(包括流行病学研究、开发和验证临床预测模型、进行审计以及为政策提供信息)的适用性问题仍然存在。目的:本研究旨在比较澳大利亚和加拿大全科医生电子病历中骨关节炎相关数据的质量,以从外部验证全膝关节置换术的临床预测模型。方法:对澳大利亚国家处方服务机构MedicineWise提供的201462例全科病历和加拿大初级保健哨点监测网络提供的92425例全科病历进行数据质量评估。评估与骨关节炎相关的数据元素的完整性、可信性和外部有效性。使用计数和比例评估完整性和合理性。对于外部有效性,患病率使用比例估计,膝关节置换术总结为每10万人的比率。结果:年龄和性别的不完整和不可信的数据字段很少(50%缺失数据)。两个数据集中按年龄和性别划分的骨关节炎记录与国家估计相似,但年龄在100 - 80岁之间的患者除外(澳大利亚:16.6%,95% CI 16%-17.3% vs 13.1%, 95% CI 11.2%-15.4%;加拿大:36.7%,95% CI 36.1% - -37.2% vs 50.8%、95%置信区间50.7% - -50.9%)。与国家估计相比,两个EHR数据集的全膝关节置换率都大大降低(澳大利亚:72 vs 218 / 100,000;加拿大:0.84 vs 200 / 100000)。结论:澳大利亚和加拿大全科医生电子病历中年龄、性别、地理位置、常见合并症和骨关节炎药物处方适用于临床预测模型验证研究。然而,BMI和加拿大多重剥夺指数(Canadian Index of Multiple Deprivation)由于数据缺失的比例很大,不适合这样使用。全膝关节置换术的发生率被严重低估,不应用于预测模型验证。需要更好地协调初级和三级保健的患者数据,以提高这些数据的适用性。与此同时,与国家登记处和其他卫生数据集的数据联系可能克服一般做法电子病历中的一些数据质量挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparing the Quality of Primary Care Electronic Health Record Data in Australia and Canada: Case Study in Osteoarthritis.

Background: General practice electronic health records (EHRs) contain a wealth of patient information. However, these data are collected for clinical purposes. Hence, questions remain around the suitability of using these data for other purposes, including epidemiological research, developing and validating clinical prediction models, conducting audits, and informing policy.

Objective: This study aimed to compare the quality of osteoarthritis-related data in Australian and Canadian general practice EHRs for externally validating a clinical prediction model for total knee replacement surgery.

Methods: A data quality assessment was conducted on 201,462 patient general practice EHRs from Australia provided by National Prescribing Service MedicineWise, and 92,425 from Canada provided by the Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network. Completeness, plausibility, and external validity of data elements relevant to osteoarthritis were assessed. Completeness and plausibility were evaluated using counts and proportions. For external validity, prevalence was estimated using proportions, and knee replacement summarized as a rate per 100,000 population.

Results: There were minimal incomplete and implausible data fields for age and sex (<1%), geographic location (<5%), and commonly cooccurring comorbidities (<10%) in both datasets. However, weight, height, BMI, and Canadian Index of Multiple Deprivation contained >50% missing data. The recording of osteoarthritis by age and sex in both datasets were similar to national estimates, except for patients aged >80 years (Australia: 16.6%, 95% CI 16%-17.3% vs 13.1%, 95% CI 11.2%-15.4%; Canada: 36.7%, 95% CI 36.1%-37.2% vs 50.8%, 95% CI 50.7%-50.9%). Total knee replacement rates were substantially lower in both EHR datasets compared with national estimates (Australia: 72 vs 218 per 100,000; Canada: 0.84 vs 200 per 100,000).

Conclusions: Age, sex, geographic location, commonly cooccurring comorbidities, and prescribing of osteoarthritis medications in Australian and Canadian general practice EHRs are suitable for use in clinical prediction model validation studies. However, BMI and the Canadian Index of Multiple Deprivation are unfit for such use due to large proportions of missing data. Rates of total knee replacement surgery were substantially underreported and should not be used for prediction model validation. Better harmonization of patient data across primary and tertiary care is required to improve the suitability of these data. In the meantime, data linkage with national registries and other health datasets may overcome some of the data quality challenges in general practice EHRs.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
14.40
自引率
5.40%
发文量
654
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR) is a highly respected publication in the field of health informatics and health services. With a founding date in 1999, JMIR has been a pioneer in the field for over two decades. As a leader in the industry, the journal focuses on digital health, data science, health informatics, and emerging technologies for health, medicine, and biomedical research. It is recognized as a top publication in these disciplines, ranking in the first quartile (Q1) by Impact Factor. Notably, JMIR holds the prestigious position of being ranked #1 on Google Scholar within the "Medical Informatics" discipline.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信