4.6 Article

Training, quality assurance, and assessment of medical record abstraction in a multisite study

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 157, Issue 6, Pages 546-551

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwg016

Keywords

case-control studies; data collection; epidemiologic methods; medical records; quality control

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA79689] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Clinical studies using medical record review should include careful training and quality assurance methods to enhance the reliability and validity of data obtained from the records. Because of time and budget constraints, comprehensive assessments of data quality and reliability, including masking of medical record abstractors, are not always possible. This paper describes the abstractor training and quality control methods and results of a masked medical record review study. The medical record review study was carried out within a larger multisite study of the effectiveness of screening mammography in preventing breast cancer mortality with an observation period within 1983 and 1993, with mortality follow-up through 1998. An eight-step program was developed to train medical record abstractors and monitor the quality of their work. A key follow-up component to the training protocol was a 5% reabstraction of medical records (n = 160), masked and reviewed by a second abstractor. High agreement was found between initial (unmasked) abstractors and masked abstractors for all key exposure variables (kappa ranged from 0.76 to 0.91), with no evidence of biased directionality by unmasked reviewers. Rigorous ongoing training programs for medical record abstractors provide assurance of good quality control in large multisite studies. Additionally, a masking study with a subsample of subjects may be a feasible and cost-effective alternative to the time- and cost-intensive methodological approach of masking all medical records.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available