Using primary care electronic health record data for comparative effectiveness research: experience of data quality assessment and preprocessing in The Netherlands
Abstract
Aim: Details of data quality and how quality issues were solved have not been reported in published comparative effectiveness studies using electronic health record data. Methods: We developed a conceptual framework of data quality assessment and preprocessing and apply it to a study comparing angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors with angiotensin receptor blockerss on renal function decline in diabetes patients. Results: The framework establishes a line of thought to identify and act on data issues. The core concept is to evaluate whether data are fit-for-use for research tasks. Possible quality problems are listed through specific signal detections, and verified whether they are true problems. Optimal solutions are selected for the identified problems. Conclusion: This framework can be used in observational studies to improve validity of results.
Formats available
You can view the full content in the following formats:
References
Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest
1.
Sox HC, Goodman SN. The methods of comparative effectiveness research. Ann. Rev. Public Health 33, 425–445 (2012).
2.
Tanenbaum SJ. Comparative effectiveness research: evidence-based medicine meets health care reform in the USA. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 15, 976–984 (2009).
3.
Alemayehu D, Cappelleri JC. Revisiting issues, drawbacks and opportunities with observational studies in comparative effectiveness research. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 19(4), 579–583 (2013).
4.
Fleurence RL, Naci H, Jansen JP. The critical role of observational evidence in comparative effectiveness research. Health Aff. (Millwood) 29(10), 1826–1833 (2010).
5.
Caruso D, Kerrigan C, Mastanudo M. Improving the value-based care and outcomes of clinical populations in an electronic health record system environment. The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice [serial online] (2011). http://tdi.dartmouth.edu.
6.
D'Avolio LW, Farwell WR, Fiore LD. Comparative effectiveness research and medical informatics. Am. J. Med. 123(12 Suppl. 1), e32–e37 (2010).
7.
Weiner MG, Embi PJ. Toward reuse of clinical data for research and quality improvement: the end of the beginning? Ann. Intern. Med. 15, 359–360 (2009).
8.
Gallego B, Dunn AG, Coiera E. Role of electronic health records in comparative effectiveness research. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 2(6), 529–532 (2013).
9.
Etheredge LM. Creating a high-performance system for comparative effectiveness research. Health Aff. (Millwood) 29(10), 1761–1767 (2010).
10.
Bayley KB, Belnap T, Savitz L et al. Challenges in using electronic health record data for CER: experience of 4 learning organizations and solutions applied. Med. Care 51(8 Suppl. 3), S80–S86 (2013).
11.
Hersh WR, Weiner MG, Embi PJ et al. Caveats for the use of operational electronic health record data in comparative effectiveness research. Med. Care 51(8 Suppl. 3), S30–S37 (2013).
12.
Wang RY, Strong DM. Beyond accuracy: what data quality means to data consumers. J. Manag. Info. Syst. 12(4), 5–34 (1996).
•• The article that developed the concept of ‘fit-for-use’.
13.
Wand Y, Wang R. Anchoring data quality dimensions in ontological foundations. Comm. ACM 39, 86–95 (1996).
14.
Arts DG, De Keizer NF, Scheffer GJ. Defining and improving data quality in medical registries: a literature review, case study, and generic framework. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 9(6), 600–611 (2002).
15.
Dixon BE, Rosenman M, Xia Y et al. A vision for the systematic monitoring and improvement of the quality of electronic health data. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 192, 884–888 (2013).
16.
Botsis T, Hartvigsen G, Chen F et al. Secondary use of EHR: data quality issues and informatics opportunities. AMIA Jt Summits Transl. Sci. Proc. 2010, 1–5 (2010).
17.
Weiskopf NG, Hripcsak G, Swaminathan S et al. Defining and measuring completeness of electronic health records for secondary use. J. Biomed. Inform. 46(5), 830–836 (2013).
18.
Berner ES, Kasiraman RK, Yu F et al. Data quality in the outpatient setting: impact on clinical decision support systems. AMIA Annu. Symp. Proc. 2005, 41–45 (2005).
19.
Hripcsak G, Albers DJ. Next-generation phenotyping of electronic health records. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 20, 117–121 (2012).
20.
Overhage JM, Overhage LM. Sensible use of observational clinical data. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 22, 7–13 (2011).
21.
Safran C, Bloomrosen M, Hammond WE et al. Toward a national framework for the secondary use of health data: an American Medical Informatics Association White Paper. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 14(1), 1–9 (2007).
22.
Hersh WR, Cimino J, Payne PR et al. Recommendations for the use of operational electronic health record data in comparative effectiveness research. EGEMS (Wash DC) 1(1), 14 (2013).
23.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Developing a Protocol for Observational Comparative Effectiveness Research – A User's Guide. Velentgas P, Dreyer NA, Nourjah P (Eds). Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, USA (2013).
24.
Holve E, Kahn M, Nahm M et al. A comprehensive framework for data quality assessment in CER. AMIA Jt Summits Transl. Sci. Proc. 2013, 86–88 (2013).
25.
The GRACE Initiative. Grace principles: good research for comparative effectiveness (2010). www.graceprinciples.org/doc/GRACE_Principles_10April2010.pdf.
26.
Chan KS, Fowles JB, Weiner JP. Review: electronic health records and the reliability and validity of quality measures: a review of the literature. Med. Care Res. Rev. 67(5), 503–527 (2010).
27.
Kahn MG, Brown JS, Chun AT et al. Transparent reporting of data quality in distributed data networks. EGEMS (Wash DC) 3(1), 1052 (2015).
28.
Los RK, Roukema J, van Ginneken AM et al. Are structured data structured identically? Investigating the uniformity of pediatric patient data recorded using OpenSDE. Methods Inf. Med. 44(5), 631–638 (2005).
29.
Huang Y, Haaijer-Ruskamp FM, Voorham J. Comparing the effect of ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers on renal function decline in diabetes. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 5(3), 229–237 (2016).
•• The original research of the case study.
30.
Voorham J, Denig P. Computerized extraction of information on the quality of diabetes care from free text in electronic patient records of general practitioners. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 14(3), 349–354 (2007).
31.
Voorham J, Haaijer-Ruskamp FM, Wolffenbuttel BH et al. Medication adherence affects treatment modifications in patients with Type 2 diabetes. Clin. Ther. 33(1), 121–134 (2011).
• The article that described the preprocessing of the prescription data.
32.
Kahn MG, Raebel MA, Glanz JM et al. A pragmatic framework for single-site and multisite data quality assessment in electronic health record-based clinical research. Med. Care 50(Suppl.), S21–S29 (2012).
33.
Brown JS, Kahn M, Toh S. Data quality assessment for comparative effectiveness research in distributed data networks. Med. Care 51(8 Suppl. 3), S22–S29 (2013).
34.
Wu Z, Wu Z. Exploration, visualization, and preprocessing of high-dimensional data. Methods Mol. Biol. 620, 267–284 (2010).
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
© Future Medicine Ltd.
History
Published online: 27 June 2016
Keywords:
Topics
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Article Usage
Article usage data only available from February 2023. Historical article usage data, showing the number of article downloads, is available upon request.
Citations
How to Cite
Using primary care electronic health record data for comparative effectiveness research: experience of data quality assessment and preprocessing in The Netherlands. (2016) Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research. DOI: 10.2217/cer-2015-0022
Export citation
Select the citation format you wish to export for this article or chapter.
Citing Literature
- Elham Hosseinzadeh, Marziyeh Afkanpour, Mehri Momeni, Hamed Tabesh, Data quality assessment in healthcare, dimensions, methods and tools: a systematic review, BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 10.1186/s12911-025-03136-y, 25, 1, (2025).
- Sharmala Thuraisingam, D Himasara Marasinghe, Kendra Barrick, Fariba Aghajafari, Jo-Anne Manski-Nankervis, Michelle M Dowsey, Hude Quan, Tyler Williamson, Stephanie Garies, Comparing the Quality of Primary Care Electronic Health Record Data in Australia and Canada: Case Study in Osteoarthritis, Journal of Medical Internet Research, 10.2196/69631, 27, (e69631), (2025).
- Doyeon An, Minsik Lim, Suehyun Lee, Challenges of Data Quality in Clinical Data Life Cycle: A Systematic Review (Preprint), Journal of Medical Internet Research, 10.2196/60709, (2024).
- Sharmala Thuraisingam, Patty Chondros, Michelle M. Dowsey, Tim Spelman, Stephanie Garies, Peter F. Choong, Jane Gunn, Jo-Anne Manski-Nankervis, Assessing the suitability of general practice electronic health records for clinical prediction model development: a data quality assessment, BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 10.1186/s12911-021-01669-6, 21, 1, (2021).