↓ Skip to main content

Characterizing and Managing Missing Structured Data in Electronic Health Records: Data Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in JMIR Medical Informatics, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
33 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
122 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
169 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Characterizing and Managing Missing Structured Data in Electronic Health Records: Data Analysis
Published in
JMIR Medical Informatics, February 2018
DOI 10.2196/medinform.8960
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brett K Beaulieu-Jones, Daniel R Lavage, John W Snyder, Jason H Moore, Sarah A Pendergrass, Christopher R Bauer

Abstract

Missing data is a challenge for all studies; however, this is especially true for electronic health record (EHR)-based analyses. Failure to appropriately consider missing data can lead to biased results. While there has been extensive theoretical work on imputation, and many sophisticated methods are now available, it remains quite challenging for researchers to implement these methods appropriately. Here, we provide detailed procedures for when and how to conduct imputation of EHR laboratory results. The objective of this study was to demonstrate how the mechanism of missingness can be assessed, evaluate the performance of a variety of imputation methods, and describe some of the most frequent problems that can be encountered. We analyzed clinical laboratory measures from 602,366 patients in the EHR of Geisinger Health System in Pennsylvania, USA. Using these data, we constructed a representative set of complete cases and assessed the performance of 12 different imputation methods for missing data that was simulated based on 4 mechanisms of missingness (missing completely at random, missing not at random, missing at random, and real data modelling). Our results showed that several methods, including variations of Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations (MICE) and softImpute, consistently imputed missing values with low error; however, only a subset of the MICE methods was suitable for multiple imputation. The analyses we describe provide an outline of considerations for dealing with missing EHR data, steps that researchers can perform to characterize missingness within their own data, and an evaluation of methods that can be applied to impute clinical data. While the performance of methods may vary between datasets, the process we describe can be generalized to the majority of structured data types that exist in EHRs, and all of our methods and code are publicly available.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 169 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 169 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 43 25%
Researcher 26 15%
Student > Master 18 11%
Unspecified 11 7%
Student > Bachelor 7 4%
Other 24 14%
Unknown 40 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 21%
Computer Science 19 11%
Unspecified 11 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 5%
Other 33 20%
Unknown 54 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 January 2023.
All research outputs
#2,140,639
of 25,390,970 outputs
Outputs from JMIR Medical Informatics
#70
of 1,230 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,078
of 336,795 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JMIR Medical Informatics
#3
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,390,970 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,230 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 336,795 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.