Integrative Medical Database Center, Department of Medical Research, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan; Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan; Institute of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, College of Public Health, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Integrative Medical Database Center, Department of Medical Research, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan; Institute of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, College of Public Health, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.
J Formos Med Assoc. 2022 Sep;121(9):1728-1738. doi: 10.1016/j.jfma.2021.12.024. Epub 2022 Feb 12.
The need is growing to create medical big data based on the electronic health records collected from different hospitals. Errors for sure occur and how to correct them should be explored.
Electronic health records of 9,197,817 patients and 53,081,148 visits, totaling about 500 million records for 2006-2016, were transmitted from eight hospitals into an integrated database. We randomly selected 10% of patients, accumulated the primary keys for their tabulated data, and compared the key numbers in the transmitted data with those of the raw data. Errors were identified based on statistical testing and clinical reasoning.
Data were recorded in 1573 tables. Among these, 58 (3.7%) had different key numbers, with the maximum of 16.34/1000. Statistical differences (P < 0.05) were found in 34 (58.6%), of which 15 were caused by changes in diagnostic codes, wrong accounts, or modified orders. For the rest, the differences were related to accumulation of hospital visits over time. In the remaining 24 tables (41.4%) without significant differences, three were revised because of incorrect computer programming or wrong accounts. For the rest, the programming was correct and absolute differences were negligible. The applicability was confirmed using the data of 2,730,883 patients and 15,647,468 patient-visits transmitted during 2017-2018, in which 10 (3.5%) tables were corrected.
Significant magnitude of inconsistent data does exist during the transmission of big data from diverse sources. Systematic validation is essential. Comparing the number of data tabulated using the primary keys allow us to rapidly identify and correct these scattered errors.
基于从不同医院收集的电子健康记录创建医疗大数据的需求日益增长。错误肯定会发生,应该探索如何纠正这些错误。
将来自 8 家医院的 9197817 名患者和 53081148 次就诊的电子健康记录传输到一个综合数据库中,这些记录总计约 2006-2016 年的 5 亿条记录。我们随机选择了 10%的患者,积累了他们表格数据的主键,并将传输数据中的关键号码与原始数据进行比较。基于统计检验和临床推理识别错误。
数据记录在 1573 个表中。其中,有 58 个(3.7%)表的关键号码不同,最大差值为 16.34/1000。在 34 个(58.6%)表中发现了统计学差异(P < 0.05),其中 15 个是由于诊断代码变化、错误账户或修改医嘱引起的。其余的则与随着时间的推移医院就诊次数的累积有关。在其余 24 个(41.4%)无显著差异的表中,有 3 个由于不正确的计算机编程或错误账户而被修改。其余的编程是正确的,绝对差异可以忽略不计。使用 2017-2018 年传输的 2730883 名患者和 15647468 名患者就诊的数据进行了适用性验证,其中有 10 个(3.5%)表得到了修正。
从不同来源传输大数据时确实存在不一致数据的显著幅度。系统验证是必要的。使用主键比较数据表格的数量可以快速识别和纠正这些分散的错误。