» Articles » PMID: 31660955

Feasibility Analysis of Conducting Observational Studies with the Electronic Health Record

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Date 2019 Oct 30
PMID 31660955
Citations 11
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: The secondary use of electronic health records (EHRs) promises to facilitate medical research. We reviewed general data requirements in observational studies and analyzed the feasibility of conducting observational studies with structured EHR data, in particular diagnosis and procedure codes.

Methods: After reviewing published observational studies from the University Hospital of Erlangen for general data requirements, we identified three different study populations for the feasibility analysis with eligibility criteria from three exemplary observational studies. For each study population, we evaluated the availability of relevant patient characteristics in our EHR, including outcome and exposure variables. To assess data quality, we computed distributions of relevant patient characteristics from the available structured EHR data and compared them to those of the original studies. We implemented computed phenotypes for patient characteristics where necessary. In random samples, we evaluated how well structured patient characteristics agreed with a gold standard from manually interpreted free texts. We categorized our findings using the four data quality dimensions "completeness", "correctness", "currency" and "granularity".

Results: Reviewing general data requirements, we found that some investigators supplement routine data with questionnaires, interviews and follow-up examinations. We included 847 subjects in the feasibility analysis (Study 1 n = 411, Study 2 n = 423, Study 3 n = 13). All eligibility criteria from two studies were available in structured data, while one study required computed phenotypes in eligibility criteria. In one study, we found that all necessary patient characteristics were documented at least once in either structured or unstructured data. In another study, all exposure and outcome variables were available in structured data, while in the other one unstructured data had to be consulted. The comparison of patient characteristics distributions, as computed from structured data, with those from the original study yielded similar distributions as well as indications of underreporting. We observed violations in all four data quality dimensions.

Conclusions: While we found relevant patient characteristics available in structured EHR data, data quality problems may entail that it remains a case-by-case decision whether diagnosis and procedure codes are sufficient to underpin observational studies. Free-text data or subsequently supplementary study data may be important to complement a comprehensive patient history.

Citing Articles

Measuring Diagnostic Quality: The Capacity of Routinely Collected Data and Applications to Chronic Respiratory Disease.

Mountain R, Gatheral T, Haslam P, Heys K, Knight J Pragmat Obs Res. 2025; 16():1-6.

PMID: 39839377 PMC: 11745041. DOI: 10.2147/POR.S430705.


Data Quality-Driven Improvement in Health Care: Systematic Literature Review.

Lighterness A, Adcock M, Scanlon L, Price G J Med Internet Res. 2024; 26:e57615.

PMID: 39173155 PMC: 11377907. DOI: 10.2196/57615.


Frameworks, Dimensions, Definitions of Aspects, and Assessment Methods for the Appraisal of Quality of Health Data for Secondary Use: Comprehensive Overview of Reviews.

Declerck J, Kalra D, Vander Stichele R, Coorevits P JMIR Med Inform. 2024; 12:e51560.

PMID: 38446534 PMC: 10955383. DOI: 10.2196/51560.


Spatio-temporal modelling of referrals to outpatient respiratory clinics in the integrated care system of the Morecambe Bay area, England.

Mountain R, Knight J, Heys K, Giorgi E, Gatheral T BMC Health Serv Res. 2024; 24(1):229.

PMID: 38388919 PMC: 10882730. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-024-10716-7.


Design, implementation, and inferential issues associated with clinical trials that rely on data in electronic medical records: a narrative review.

Leviton A, Loddenkemper T BMC Med Res Methodol. 2023; 23(1):271.

PMID: 37974111 PMC: 10652539. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-023-02102-4.


References
1.
Weiskopf N, Bakken S, Hripcsak G, Weng C . A Data Quality Assessment Guideline for Electronic Health Record Data Reuse. EGEMS (Wash DC). 2018; 5(1):14. PMC: 5983018. DOI: 10.5334/egems.218. View

2.
Weiskopf N, Weng C . Methods and dimensions of electronic health record data quality assessment: enabling reuse for clinical research. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012; 20(1):144-51. PMC: 3555312. DOI: 10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000681. View

3.
Rothman K, Greenland S . Causation and causal inference in epidemiology. Am J Public Health. 2005; 95 Suppl 1:S144-50. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2004.059204. View

4.
Hersh W, Weiner M, Embi P, Logan J, Payne P, Bernstam E . Caveats for the use of operational electronic health record data in comparative effectiveness research. Med Care. 2013; 51(8 Suppl 3):S30-7. PMC: 3748381. DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31829b1dbd. View

5.
Hagel A, Naegel A, Dauth W, Matzel K, Kessler H, Farnbacher M . Perforation during esophageal dilatation: a 10-year experience. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis. 2013; 22(4):385-9. View