Abstract
Background
Electronic health records (EHRs) facilitate the accessibility and sharing of patient data among various health care providers, contributing to more coordinated and efficient care.
Objective
This study aimed to summarize the evolution of secondary use of EHRs and their interoperability in medical research over the past 25 years.
Methods
We conducted an extensive literature search in the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases using the keywords Electronic health record and Electronic medical record in the title or abstract and Medical research in all fields from 2000 to 2024. Specific terms were applied to different time periods.
Results
The review yielded 2212 studies, all of which were then screened and processed in a structured manner. Of these 2212 studies, 2102 (93.03%) were included in the review analysis, of which 1079 (51.33%) studies were from 2000 to 2009, 582 (27.69%) were from 2010 to 2019, 251 (11.94%) were from 2020 to 2023, and 190 (9.04%) were from 2024.
Conclusions
The evolution of EHRs marks an important milestone in health care’s journey toward integrating technology and medicine. From early documentation practices to the sophisticated use of artificial intelligence and big data analytics today, EHRs have become central to improving patient care, enhancing public health surveillance, and advancing medical research.
Keywords: electronic health record, electronic medical record, medical research, interoperability, eHealth, systematic review, real-world evidence, artificial intelligence
Introduction
Tracing Back to History
The practice of documenting patient information dates back approximately 3000 years, when early humans created some of the first known medical records by inscribing case histories on materials such as papyrus, clay tablets, animal bones, and other surfaces [1-3]. These records often included symptoms, diagnoses, and treatments. The health care delivery system developed with a long history and became increasingly complex. During the time of classical medicine, health care providers frequently gathered and systematized medical knowledge, creating standardized textbooks, which were often recorded by case series rather than individual patients [4]. In the 19th century, health care providers began keeping detailed paper records. These were used to track patients’ medical histories, nursing information, treatments, and outcomes. Hospitals and clinics maintained handwritten notes, which were stored in file systems [5-8]. With the explosion of electronic technologies boosted in the 20th century, hospitals began using such technologies to store records, reducing physical storage space and improving record retrieval efficiency. Computerization is one of the revolutionary technologies. The concept of electronic health records (EHRs) originated in the 1960s [9]. It aimed to improve the storage, retrieval, and management of patient information. Health care professionals started to address clinical challenges and steer treatment decisions by using data from these systems. Later, the 1990s brought about efforts to standardize EHR systems and the introduction of the internet, which significantly influenced EHR development. The 2010s witnessed widespread adoption of EHRs, driven by government incentives and the recognition of their potential to improve health care quality, safety, and efficiency [10-13]. Now, in the 2020s, the use of EHRs has been boosted with the development of advanced technologies in health care.
Objectives
In the past 25 years, the scope of EHRs varied significantly across the globe. Initially, many EHR systems were developed primarily as billing tools and were not intended to support clinical workflows. However, over time, their functionality expanded to optimize diagnosis and patient care, thereby enhancing their utility and relevance for clinical research. This evolution has transformed EHRs into a valuable resource not only for managing health care delivery but also for facilitating data-driven research efforts. For the 25th anniversary of the Journal of Medical Internet Research, this review focused on the evolution of secondary use of EHRs and their interoperability in medical research over the past 25 years. For researchers using EHR data in medical studies, we explored the advancements in EHR technology, emphasizing how they have facilitated better management and understanding of diseases through comprehensive data collection and analysis. In addition, this review highlighted the importance of these records in epidemiological studies, pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs), and health economic studies, particularly in providing a more accurate representation of clinical practices and patient populations.
Methods
Literature Review
We focused on the advancements in EHR technology and the application and significance of these records in medical research across 3 distinct periods. Therefore, we conducted an extensive literature search in the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases, which provides ideal coverage of the publications of interest. We followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines (Multimedia Appendix 1).
Our search strategy was divided into three parts: (1) all studies that contained the terms Electronic health record or Electronic medical record in the title or abstract and medical research in all fields were identified; (2) according to the time of publication, the studies were divided into 2000s, 2010s, 2020 to 2023, and 2024; and (3) the studies were then narrowed down to fields by specific terms (Figure 1). For example, the search term for the 2010s was as follows: ((electronic health record[Title/Abstract]) OR (electronic medical record[Title/Abstract])) AND (medical research) AND ((real world study) OR (real world evidence) OR (pragmatic clinical trial) OR (pragmatic trial)). We used cross-referencing techniques from the included studies and supplemented our search with forward and backward citation tracking to ensure comprehensive coverage.
Figure 1.
Search strategy and results by timeline.
Qualitative Structured Analysis
Qualitative analysis and structuring of the available sources were performed using NVivo (version 14; Lumivero) software. All studies were coded using NVivo to generate keywords.
Results
Eligible Studies
According to the PRISMA framework (Figure 2), articles were searched in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases and categorized by period. Duplicate records, non-English abstracts, and records unrelated to EHRs were excluded, resulting in a final inclusion of 2102 articles. We also excluded records not pertinent to the application of EHRs in medical research, such as commentary articles and those focused on fraudulent claims.
Figure 2.
PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flowchart.
Time Intervals
The included articles highlighted the evolution of EHRs from simple documentation tools to central components of patient care, public health surveillance, and medical research. During the 2000s, researchers used EHRs in various observational studies and health care quality improvement efforts. During this period, early research using EHRs often focused on single health care systems with limited clinical data. The introduction of digital imaging and communications in medicine enabled the use of biomedical image data within EHRs, facilitating clinical follow-ups and case studies. During the 2010s, the EHRs served as primary data sources for many large-scale studies on patient outcomes, disease patterns, and treatment efficacy. Various national registries and research networks emerged to explore disease associations, health risks, and health care interventions. The concept of real-world evidence (RWE) gained attention, with PCTs relying heavily on EHR data to evaluate interventions in real-world settings. In addition, claim data were linked to EHRs for assessing health care services, resource use, and costs. Regulatory agencies began considering RWE in drug approvals and postmarketing surveillance. During the 2020s, retrospective EHR reviews enabled early identification of clinical characteristics, risk factors, and effective interventions, particularly focusing on the global health challenges of COVID-19 pandemic. Comparative effectiveness research using EHR data provided insights into public health measures, testing strategies, and treatment protocols. Globally, countries used their EHR infrastructure for real-time surveillance, vaccine distribution, and health policy adjustments. In addition, EHR data highlighted the impact of social determinants of health (SDOH) on COVID-19 outcomes. In addition, EHRs have played a pivotal role in precision medicine. Artificial intelligence (AI) and natural language processing (NLP) have increasingly been applied to EHRs, enabling predictive analytics for patient care, personalized treatments, and health care operations optimization. Many studies also highlighted the remaining limitations and challenges, including data quality, standardization, interoperability, patient privacy, data security, and high implementation costs. Enhanced regulatory frameworks, data-sharing agreements, and advanced security technologies were recommended to address these issues.
Discussion
Initial Adoption and Early Research Use Before and in the 2000s
The Problem-Oriented Medical Record
One of the earliest known efforts to use electronic systems for medical research that could be considered a precursor to modern EHRs was by Weed in 1968 [14]. Weed [14] introduced the concept of the problem-oriented medical record (POMR), which organized patient data according to specific problems, making it more systematic and usable for both care and research. Researchers began to use POMR for cost analysis [15], staff communications [16], and decision-making [17-19] in a wide range of diseases. The POMR was also strongly advocated among medical students for training purposes [20]. As patient-centered medical care always necessitates a patient-centered medical record, the POMR remained prevalent in the early 2000s [21-23].
The Regenstrief Institute, established in 1969 in Indianapolis, Indiana, is another pioneer in this field. The institute developed the Regenstrief Medical Record System (RMRS), one of the first electronic medical record systems [24,25]. The RMRS allowed for the electronic capture, storage, and retrieval of patient data, serving as a model for later EHR systems. Researchers began to design randomized trials by using the system to test the effectiveness of medications [26,27]. The RMRS attempted to create a community-wide linkage across health care systems, urgent care hospitals, clinics, and health departments [28]. Both Weed’s [14] work on POMR and the Regenstrief Institute’s development of the RMRS played significant roles in the early use of electronic systems to support medical research, laying the groundwork for the EHR systems we see today.
Technological and Methodological Developments
With the development of POMR and RMRS, some new technologies and methodologies were applied to support the use of EHRs in research. This included the creation of data warehouses and the development of tools for data mining and analysis, which would later become crucial for extracting meaningful insights from large EHR datasets [29,30]. The recognition of the value of EHR data for research led to the formation of consortia and collaborative networks aimed at sharing data and best practices. These early collaborations laid the foundation for later, more extensive networks that would leverage EHR data for multicenter studies and nationwide research initiatives [31].
In 2009, the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH) was passed [12]. The HITECH Act represented a critical step in the digital transformation of the US health care system. The HITECH Act led to a substantial increase in the collection and digitization of patient health information. This vast repository of data became a valuable resource for researchers, offering a wealth of information on patient outcomes, disease patterns, and treatment effectiveness [32-36]. Most research studies in 2000s leveraging EHRs have some features in common, including a single health care system or single hospital, an observational study design, and limited data on clinical characteristics [37]. In addition, some researchers also tried to use EHRs for pharmacovigilance and comparative effectiveness of drugs [38-41]. The limited duration of interventional and observational periods in clinical trials necessitated real-time monitoring of therapeutic effectiveness and safety, crucial for both physicians and patients. The use of EHRs effectively addressed these concerns [42]. Some early explorations on biomedical image data began with the incorporation of the digital imaging and communications in medicine within EHRs [43-46]. The deidentification of radiology clinical data allowed researchers to conduct case series studies and to follow up the changing patterns of the biomedical images in a certain disease area.
The Rise of Big Data in Health Care in the 2010s
In the 2010s, big data analytics in health care were popular, with EHRs serving as the primary data source. Researchers began leveraging EHR data to conduct large-scale studies on patient outcomes, disease patterns, and treatment efficacy. A lot of cohort studies have been designed and conducted using EHR data to provide evidence of the association between risk factors and occurrence as well as the prognosis of diseases. In addition, a lot of quality improvement studies used EHRs to investigate the patients’ communication and clinical support. The disease areas covered almost every system in the body, including primary care [47], cardiology [48], sepsis [49], cancer [50], diabetes [51], rheumatology [52], nephrology [53], neurology [54], hepatology [55], and gastroenterology [56]. Our previous review has highlighted the practical use of EHRs among patients with diabetes in medical research [57]. Moreover, insurance claim data, such as that from the Kaiser Permanente [58-60], offer valuable insights for enhancing our understanding of health risks, improving patient outcomes, and informing policy and practice decisions.
In contrast, researchers also started to analyze data from large patient populations to identify health trends, assess risk factors, and develop strategies for disease prevention and health promotion. They started to use these data for potential patient selections and recruitment for clinical trials [61]. Meanwhile, PCTs began to rise gradually [62]. Researchers have made significant efforts to bridge the gap between clinical trial results and real-world outcomes [63-66]. These type of trials were designed to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions or medications in real-world clinical settings, aiming to inform health care decision makers about the trade-offs between benefits, harms, and costs of those interventions [67-69]. They mainly rely on the EHR data. Researchers aimed at addressing key uncertainties in real-world clinical settings, focusing on comparing interventions or medications in ways that reflect usual care [70,71]. There were also some tools that were developed to help researchers design and implement PCTs, including the Pragmatic–Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS-2) [72]. Moreover, stakeholder engagement is a pivotal step [73,74]. The implementation phase requires selecting appropriate sites that mirror the settings where the intervention will be applied, using strategies for diverse participant recruitment, and integrating interventions and comparators seamlessly into routine clinical practice. Data collection leverages EHR to minimize disruption and enhance the efficiency of the trial process. PCTs seem more reliable to provide RWE than traditional randomized trials. Some claim data linked to EHRs can also provide detailed records of health care services received by patients, allowing researchers to accurately measure resource use and associated costs [75-77]. This information is crucial for cost-effectiveness analyses that compare the costs and outcomes of different health care interventions. EHR data enable the estimation of direct medical costs by documenting clinical procedures, medication prescriptions, hospital stays, and other health care services. In addition, EHR data have contributed to the evaluations of health care quality and system performance, which supported its use in health policy studies, as the data contain a huge amount of information on health care procedures [78-80].
Regulatory agencies, including the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [81] and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) [82], began to explore the potential of RWE from real-world studies of large cohorts or PCTs in supporting drug approvals and postmarketing surveillance. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute in the United States, which was established in 2010, also reflected a growing recognition of the value of RWE in regulatory decisions and health care policy [83,84]. The FDA and EMA considered approval seriously with evidence from RWE, particularly when traditional clinical trials are not feasible or practical [85]. This is particularly relevant in scenarios where patient populations are rare, heterogeneous, or difficult to recruit into randomized controlled trials. Regulatory agencies, including the FDA and the EMA, have increasingly recognized the value of RWE in regulatory decision-making. The FDA’s 21st Century Cures Act has encouraged the use of RWE in supporting the approval of new indications for existing drugs and in fulfilling postmarketing study requirements [85]. A notable example of this is the expanded indication of palbociclib, which was approved by the FDA for use in male patients with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer [86]. In 2020, the FDA approved pembrolizumab for the treatment of adult and pediatric patients with unresectable or metastatic solid tumors that have a high tumor mutational burden [87]. This decision involved RWE derived from genetic sequencing and EHRs. Other examples include the approval of blinatumomab for pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia [88], ibrutinib for chronic lymphocytic leukemia [89], nusinersen for spinal muscular atrophy [90], and alosetron for irritable bowel syndrome in female patients [91].
Global Health, Precision Medicine, and AI in the 2020s
COVID-19 Pandemic and Real-Time Surveillance
The global nature of the COVID-19 pandemic increased the importance of international collaboration in medical research. While the health care providers were busy taking actions against the COVID-19 pandemic, they used retrospective EHR to learn lessons and analyze the trends and responses they had made [92-98]. The World Health Organization declared the outbreak a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) in early 2020 [99] and ended the PHEIC declaration in 2023 [100]. During the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, Chinese physician-scientists played a crucial role in understanding the disease by conducting retrospective reviews of medical records [93,95-98]. This process was instrumental in identifying the clinical characteristics and transmission patterns of COVID-19 infection, at a time when the world was scrambling for information on how to deal with the novel coronavirus. Importantly, these studies highlighted the disease’s high transmissibility, both from symptomatic and asymptomatic carriers, underlining the importance of widespread testing, contact tracing, and quarantine measures to control its spread [101-106]. This group of physician-scientists from Wuhan, China, also contributed to the understanding of risk factors associated with severe outcomes, including age, pre-existing health conditions, and certain demographic factors. Their findings on the efficacy of various public health interventions, such as the use of face masks, social distancing, and the implementation of lockdowns, informed policies not just in China but around the world [107,108]. Furthermore, the early identification of the genome sequence of SARS-CoV-2 virus by researchers facilitated the rapid development of diagnostic tests and the initiation of vaccine development efforts [109-111]. This early sharing of data was pivotal in the global race to develop vaccines and therapeutics against COVID-19.
During the midpandemic period, EHR data became instrumental for comparative effectiveness research, aimed at evaluating and improving health outcomes across various populations and health care systems. This research spanned a broad spectrum of topics crucial to pandemic management, including the effectiveness of personal protective equipment [112-114], the impact of social distancing [115,116], the accuracy and efficiency of different testing strategies [117,118], strategies [117,118], the efficacy and safety of antiviral medications and vaccines [119-123], and the role of health supplements [124]. In addition, it explored the role of telemedicine in sustaining patient care and the importance of primary care services during the COVID-19 pandemic [115,125-128]. For example, comparative effectiveness research helped identify the types of personal protective equipment that were most effective in preventing virus transmission among health care workers and the public [129,130]. Similarly, studies on social distancing and lockdown measures offered evidence-based guidance on how to balance public health concerns with economic and social implications [131]. The investigation into testing strategies elucidated the strengths and weaknesses of various diagnostic approaches, leading to improvements in testing strategies and the quicker identification of COVID-19 cases [132]. Research on antiviral drugs, anti-inflammatory drugs, and some health supplements informed treatment protocols, contributing to the development of therapeutic strategies that reduced the severity and duration of the disease [133,134]. Telemedicine emerged as a vital tool for providing continuous care while minimizing the risk of virus transmission, demonstrating its potential to revolutionize health care delivery beyond the pandemic [135,136].
In addition to China, in the United States, EHR systems also played a crucial role in the national response to COVID-19. Through partnerships with health care systems and EHR vendors, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the US FDA’s Sentinel System and other public health authorities gained access to near–real-time data on COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, ventilator use, and patient outcomes [137]. EHRs were also instrumental in tracking vaccine distribution and administration. The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System used EHR data to monitor postvaccination side effects, guiding policy adjustments in vaccination campaigns [138]. In the United Kingdom, the government leveraged its National Health Service (NHS) EHR infrastructure for real-time surveillance and policy making during the COVID-19 pandemic. The United Kingdom developed the OpenSAFELY platform, a secure analytics environment that allowed researchers to access deidentified EHR data of >58 million NHS patients [139]. EHR data were used to identify individuals with high risk and provided real-time data on hospital admissions, intensive care unit (ICU) bed occupancy, and patient outcomes. South Korea used a robust real-time surveillance system that integrated EHRs with other health data sources to contain the spread of COVID-19, including contact tracing and national health reporting [140]. In Australia, the national My Health Record system was used to support the country’s pandemic response with centralized health data access and the implementation of lockdowns and the reopening of services [141]. Germany also used EHR data to manage its health care resources effectively during the COVID-19 pandemic, which used EHR data to monitor ICU capacity across the country. Hospitals provided daily updates on bed occupancy, ventilator availability, and staffing levels [142]. In addition, Germany explored the use of EHRs to develop digital health passports that recorded patients’ vaccination status and COVID-19 test results [143]. The use of EHRs for real-time surveillance and policy making during COVID-19 highlighted the importance of interoperable systems. Countries with centralized health records or integrated health information exchanges were better positioned to use EHR data quickly and effectively.
The COVID-19 pandemic has also accentuated the critical role of SDOH, revealing stark disparities in disease outcomes across different populations [144]. EHRs have provided a rich dataset for analyzing these disparities, uncovering the disproportionate burden of COVID-19 on specific groups such as the older adults, individuals with chronic diseases, and those with autoimmune diseases. Studies leveraging EHR data have identified various social determinants that contribute to the increased vulnerability of these populations. Factors such as socioeconomic status, access to health care, living conditions, and occupational hazards have been linked to higher rates of infection, severe disease outcomes, and mortality [145-151]. For instance, individuals in lower socioeconomic brackets often face barriers to accessing health care services, leading to delayed or inadequate treatment for COVID-19 [152]. Similarly, patients with pre-existing chronic conditions such as diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and respiratory diseases have been shown to experience more severe outcomes when infected with the virus [105,153]. Furthermore, the research has highlighted the importance of addressing these social determinants in pandemic response strategies. Interventions targeting SDOH can help mitigate the adverse outcomes of COVID-19 among populations considered vulnerable. This included improving access to health care, enhancing support for individuals with chronic diseases, ensuring the availability of protective measures for individuals classified as immunocompromised, and addressing the broader socioeconomic and environmental factors that contribute to health disparities [154].
Even after the end of the PHEIC declaration, the use of EHR in studying post–COVID-19 condition continued to be of paramount importance. Research into the long-term impacts of COVID-19, particularly on mental health [155-158] and cognitive functions [159-161], remains a critical area of public health inquiry. EHRs were expected to provide invaluable, real-time data that can link early exposure to COVID-19 with outcomes that may manifest decades later or even across a lifetime. As humanity progresses, EHRs stand as a vital resource, equipping us to face global crises and unpredictable challenges with resilience and informed action.
Precision Medicine and Genomics
Precision medicine represents a transformative approach to health care in the past 10 years, focusing on the customization of treatment based on an individual’s genetic makeup, environment, and lifestyle [162]. EHRs played a pivotal role in the advancement of precision medicine, where treatments are tailored to the individual characteristics of each patient. The integration of genomics data with EHRs allowed researchers to study the genetic bases of diseases and to personalize health care at an unprecedented level. However, integration is still facing several challenges and opportunities. While the routine clinical application of genomic data is still emerging, some EHR-connected biobanks and initiatives are actively addressing the challenges involved. While the EHR-connected biobanks were initially designed for research purposes, it has actively promoted to incorporate the biobank data into the EHR systems.
The UK Biobank (UKB) stands as a prominent figure in the realm of biomedical research, featuring an expansive database and research resource. It encompasses deidentified genetic, lifestyle, and health information, along with biological samples from half a million UK participants [163]. This rich dataset is further augmented by linkage to the United Kingdom’s EHRs, such as the Hospital Episode Statistics and the Patient Episode Databases [164,165]. The UKB’s comprehensive dataset has been instrumental in propelling forward the fields of medicine and research, offering profound insights into the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of numerous serious and life-threatening diseases. The UKB has released a set of whole genome sequencing data. Since 2018, numerous studies have used these data, along with Mendelian randomization, to investigate the causal relationships between genetic backgrounds and diseases [166-169]. While the UKB serves as a notable instance of linking a study cohort with EHRs, it does not exemplify direct integration. Despite encompassing data from half a million individuals, the UKB faces potential selection bias [170]. This is attributed to the fact that the initiative dispatched >9 million invitations across the nation, suggesting that the participants may not fully represent the broader population.
Similar to the approach of the UKB, the National Institutes of Health in the United States initiated the All of Us Research Program in 2018, aiming to enroll more than a million individuals [171]. By January 1, 2024, the program had successfully registered >760,000 participants, securing access to >539,000 samples for genomic sequencing and 420,000 EHRs. Through its comprehensive data collection, the All of Us Research Program seeks to address critical gaps in medical research, particularly in areas underserved by existing studies, thereby fostering a deeper understanding of various health conditions and improving strategies for prevention, diagnosis, and treatment across the spectrum of both common diseases and rare diseases. However, it remains a strong example of linking cohort data with EHRs.
Other local or nationwide biobanks with linkage to EHRs or national registries include the Danish Biobank Register [172]; BioBank Japan [173]; China Kadoorie Biobank [174]; Kaiser Permanente Research Bank [175]; deCODE Genetics [176]; FinnGen biobank [177]; Vanderbilt University’s bioVU [178]; Michigan Genomics Initiative [179]; BioMe biobank [180]; the Estonian biobank [181]; and the Norwegian Mother, Father and Child Cohort Study [182]. These initiatives varied in scope and scale but collectively contributed to the growing field of genomic research linked to EHRs, facilitating advances in personalized medicine and the understanding of genetic influences on various diseases.
The true sense of integrating genomic data into EHRs presented challenges such as diverse data structures, storage limitations, interpretation complexities, and financial constraints. The National Human Genome Research Institute supported the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics network to address these issues by harmonizing data and developing guidelines for genomic data integration and use [183]. Solutions are in progress, and the initiative now has >10 clinical site partners, along with a network of affiliates across major areas in the United States. The Electronic Medical Records and Genomics network is not only developing best practices for electronic phenotyping and biobanking consultation but also exploring EHRs for additional genome-wide association studies outcomes among genotyped individuals, leveraging the rich phenotypic data available.
Data Analytics and AI
The use of data analytics and AI in analyzing EHR data has grown exponentially. Researchers were using machine learning algorithms to identify patterns, predict outcomes, and generate insights into disease progression, treatment efficacy, and patient care optimization [184,185]. These technologies enabled the analysis of vast amounts of data in ways that were not previously possible.
Predictive Analytics for Identifying Patients With High Risk and Their Outcomes
One of the most significant applications of AI in health care is in identifying patients at high risk of developing specific conditions and predicting outcomes among patients who were already diagnosed with a health condition. By analyzing historical EHR data, including patient demographics, previous health conditions, treatment histories, and lifestyle factors, AI models can predict which patients are more likely to develop diseases such as diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, or chronic respiratory conditions, as well as the potential outcomes of various treatment options [186-190]. Early identification of these patients allows health care providers to implement preventive measures, tailor treatments to individual needs, and in doing so, significantly reduce the risk of severe outcomes or the need for hospitalization. This predictive capability enables physicians to choose the most effective treatment plans, thereby improving the quality of care and patient satisfaction. In the context of infectious diseases, AI models are invaluable for tracking and forecasting the spread of diseases. By integrating EHR data with information from other sources, such as public health records and social media, AI algorithms can predict outbreaks, model the spread of infections, and inform public health interventions [191,192]. This was particularly evident during the COVID-19 pandemic, where AI played a pivotal role in predicting hospitalization rates, identifying potential hot spots, and guiding the allocation of medical resources [193,194].
Personalized Medications and Clinical or Regulatory Decision Support Systems
Leveraging EHR data, AI is facilitating personalized medicine by tailoring treatment plans to individual patient characteristics, genetic information, and historical health data. This approach helps in predicting how different patients will respond to various treatments, thereby improving treatment effectiveness and reducing side effects [195]. While medications only serve one part of the disease management, AI integrated with EHR systems can provide clinicians with decision support by offering diagnostic suggestions, recommending treatment options, and alerting health care providers to potential adverse drug interactions or necessary screenings, thereby enhancing patient care quality [196-200]. AI tools also analyze EHR data to optimize hospital operations and predict perioperative complications. This can lead to improved patient satisfaction, lower surgery-related adverse events, and lower health care costs [201-205]. Among the AI strategies, NLP technologies represent a pivotal advancement in the use of EHR data, transforming the landscape of health care data analytics and decision-making [185]. NLP enables the extraction of valuable information from unstructured text within EHRs, such as clinical observations, patient histories, and diagnostic notes, which traditionally have been difficult to analyze systematically due to their unstructured nature. This capability not only enhances the richness of data available for clinical decision-making but also significantly expands the potential for personalized patient care and advanced health care analytics [206-209]. One notable example of NLP’s application in health care is the development of GatorTron (University of Florida), a large clinical language model trained on >90 billion words from clinical notes, PubMed articles, and Wikipedia [210-212]. GatorTron significantly outperforms previous models in clinical NLP tasks such as clinical concept extraction, medical relation extraction, semantic textual similarity, natural language inference, and medical question answering. This model showcases how scaling up the number of parameters and data size can lead to substantial improvements in performance across various NLP tasks, ultimately enhancing the extraction and interpretation of critical information from EMR data for better health care delivery and research.
EHRs in Medical Research in the Next Decades
The next decades will likely see significant advancements in EHR capabilities, focusing on interoperability, precision medicine, AI and digital health technologies, the integration of SDOH, public health monitoring, and the enhancement of data analytic tools (Figure 3).
Figure 3.
Future landscape of electronic health records.
EHRs for Patient Care Versus EHRs for Research
It has been a trend to develop an EHR system for research use only. EHRs designed for patient care and those designed for research may differ in their structure, focus, and functionality [213]. EHRs tailored for patient care will prioritize real-time clinical decision support, patient safety, and continuity of care. They are built to store detailed patient information, such as medical history, medications, allergies, laboratory results, and diagnostic imaging, allowing health care providers to quickly access and update data during clinical encounters. The interface is designed for ease of use. In contrast, EHRs designed for research will focus on data collection, aggregation, and analysis at a population level. They emphasize data standardization, coding, and interoperability, allowing researchers to extract large datasets for epidemiological studies, clinical trials, and public health surveillance [214]. These EHRs will include extensive metadata and use structured data formats to facilitate the analysis of trends and outcomes. While patient care EHRs focus on the individual patient, research-oriented EHRs aggregate deidentified data from diverse populations to explore disease patterns, treatment effectiveness, and health care disparities. In addition, research EHRs must also address data privacy and consent issues more rigorously to comply with ethical standards for data use [214].
Enhanced Interoperability and Data Sharing
Future EHR systems are likely to achieve higher levels of interoperability, enabling seamless data sharing across different health care systems, health care providers, and even countries. This will facilitate comprehensive patient care, collaborative research, and public health monitoring on a national or even a global scale. Regulations governing the use of EHRs and related technologies will evolve to keep pace with advancements, addressing ethical considerations, data ownership, and the use of digital health data in research and health care delivery. As the use of EHRs grows, the focus on protecting patient data will also be important. Advanced security technologies and privacy-preserving methods, such as blockchain and federated learning, may be used to safeguard information while enabling its use for care and research.
As a good example, the CODE-EHR framework represents a crucial advancement, focusing on improving the design of studies that use structured EHR records [215]. This framework emphasizes the importance of verification, validation, and data privacy, along with addressing social mandates to undertake research. It proposes minimum standards to enhance study transparency and provides a road map toward more effective use of health care data for research. By enabling the embedding of controlled trials within real-world settings, such as registries or routine clinical practice, CODE-EHR aims to produce more generalizable results that can inform patient care, health care cost containment, and quality of life improvements.
Integration of Genomic and Other Omics-Related Precision Medicine Data
As genomic sequencing becomes more affordable and commonplace, EHRs are expected to integrate multiomics information, supporting the advancement of precision medicine. This will allow health care providers to tailor treatments to individual patients based on their individualized profiles, improving outcomes and minimizing adverse reactions [216].
The PennChart Genomics Initiative has demonstrated significant progress and potential in integrating genomic data into EHRs for optimizing patient care and facilitating medical research [217,218]. By creating a centralized document display for genetic results in the EHR, researchers and clinicians can improve patient care while addressing privacy concerns. This initiative has already led to the integration of thousands of genetic documents into the EHR, highlighting the potential for EHRs to support precision medicine and accelerate the discovery of novel genomic medicine applications. Future efforts aim to expand this integration and address challenges such as educational needs, infrastructure compatibility, and maintaining privacy and security protections.
The Genetics Underlying Diabetes in Hispanics and Latinos study in the United States is a pioneering initiative planning to enroll 100,000 newborns for whole genome sequencing [219]. This program aims to explore the potential of genomic data in newborn screening, with the goal of enhancing early diagnosis and treatment in neonatal ICUs and pediatric ICUs. By identifying genomic markers early on, the program seeks to save lives and reduce hospital stays for patients with undiagnosed disease, showcasing the transformative power of genomics in precision health care.
Genomics England’s program is another potential effort to integrate genetic data with EHR data, aiming to sequence 100,000 genomes from NHS patients with rare diseases and their families as well as patients with cancer [220]. Launched to enhance our understanding of genetics in disease and to pioneer a UK genomic medicine service, the project’s success has paved the way for further genomic research and integration into health care. This initiative highlights the potential of genomic data in advancing personalized medicine and improving treatment strategies.
Expansion of AI and Other Digital Health Technologies
EHRs in the future will increasingly incorporate AI and machine learning algorithms to analyze health data in real time, predicting patient risks (such as for chronic diseases or hospital readmissions) and suggesting personalized prevention and treatment plans. AI-driven models, using big data from EHRs, outperform traditional methods in sensitivity, specificity, and other metrics. The implementation of these models into web applications and mobile apps could significantly aid clinical decision-making, emphasizing the need for effective strategies to integrate AI algorithms in clinical tools.
The future use of NLP in EHRs is also expected to significantly enhance health care delivery and research [221]. By leveraging NLP, health care professionals can continuously extract valuable insights from the increasing volumes of unstructured data within EHRs. This advancement will allow for more accurate patient stratification, personalized treatment plans, and improved predictive models for disease outcomes in the future. NLP technologies are set to automate the extraction and interpretation of clinical information, reducing manual data entry and analysis burdens. In addition, real-time processing of patient data through NLP will facilitate more rapid clinical decision support, optimizing treatment approaches and patient care pathways [222]. The integration of NLP with EHR systems promises a shift toward more data-driven, efficient, and patient-centered health care, highlighting its critical role in advancing medical research, enhancing disease surveillance, and ultimately improving patient outcomes.
In addition, EHRs will also become more integrated with other digital health technologies, such as wearable devices, telehealth platforms, and digital therapeutics [223,224]. Wearable devices, ranging from fitness trackers to advanced biosensors, have become increasingly sophisticated, capable of monitoring a wide array of health metrics such as heart rate, activity levels, sleep patterns, and blood glucose levels. Integrating these devices with EHRs can provide clinicians with a more comprehensive view of a patient’s health status, extending beyond the snapshots captured during clinical visits. This continuous stream of real-time data can enhance preventive care strategies, enable early detection of potential health issues, and support personalized treatment plans. For patients with chronic conditions, this integration can facilitate closer monitoring and adjustments to treatment regimens based on near–real-time data, potentially improving outcomes and patient engagement in their care. Telehealth platforms have experienced exponential growth, a trend significantly accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The integration of telehealth with EHRs ensures that online consultations are informed by the patient’s medical history, current medications, and recent test results, allowing for more informed clinical decision-making [225]. This seamless flow of information can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of virtual care, making health care more accessible, particularly for individuals in remote or underserved regions. Furthermore, integrating telehealth encounters into EHRs ensures that all aspects of a patient’s care are documented in a single, comprehensive record, supporting continuity of care across different health care settings. Digital therapeutics, which include software-driven evidence-based interventions, are an emerging field within health care [226]. These interventions, which can range from cognitive behavioral therapy apps for mental health to digital programs for chronic disease management, offer new avenues for treatment that are accessible and scalable. Integrating digital therapeutics with EHRs can enhance the personalization of care, enabling health care providers to track patients’ engagement and progress with these interventions in parallel with traditional treatments. This integration can also facilitate the collection of outcome data, supporting the evaluation of the effectiveness of digital therapeutics in real-world settings and informing future care decisions.
Incorporation of SDOH
Addressing SDOH is crucial for improving health outcomes and reducing health disparities. Future EHR systems may include more comprehensive data on patients’ social, economic, and environmental conditions, which are currently lacking in most systems and platforms [227]. This idea of data integration will empower health care providers to address not just the clinical but also the contextual aspects of health, leading to more targeted interventions, improved health outcomes, and reduced health care disparities. The evolution of EHR systems to include comprehensive SDOH data will necessitate advancements in data collection, privacy protocols, and analytics. Collecting SDOH data in EHRs in the future could involve leveraging technology to automate data capture from various sources, including patient self-reporting through digital platforms, integrating community health data, and using NLP to extract SDOH information from clinical narratives.
Future Use in Public Health and Epidemiology
EHRs will continuously play a vital role in monitoring public health trends due to their performance during the COVID-19 pandemic, managing outbreaks of infectious diseases, and conducting large-scale epidemiological studies in the future in case of other unpredictable pandemics. Real-time data analysis will enable quicker responses to public health emergencies and more effective preventive strategies. However, these potential opportunities will depend mainly on the enhanced interoperability and data sharing, as mentioned previously.
Integration of Data Analytic Tools With EHRs
Integrating data analytics tools with EHRs involves connecting the capabilities of data analysis software with the wealth of patient information stored in EHR systems. This integration can enhance health care delivery, improve patient outcomes, and facilitate health care research by leveraging advanced analytics on EHR data. A recent effort for an integrated online phenomics knowledge base within the EHR data was the development of the Centralized Interactive Phenomics Resource (CIPHER) knowledge base [228,229]. The CIPHER is a comprehensive, public-facing knowledge base designed to streamline the development of clinical phenotypes, aiming at facilitating clinical and health services research. It also featured scalable metadata management, integrated tools, and user workflows as well as enabled complex searches through stored phenotype metadata adhering to the CIPHER standard. Phenotypes can be contributed via a webform that validates metadata, and the platform includes data visualization tools to improve user engagement and accelerate phenotype development. Hopefully, the CIPHER knowledge base can expand the phenotype algorithm repository and the collaborations among users in the future.
Potential Challenges
It also highlighted several challenges in using EHRs for medical research before and in the past 25 years, including issues with data quality, consistency, and interoperability between different EHR systems. Privacy and security concerns regarding the use of patient data for research purposes were significant, leading to regulatory efforts to protect patient information while enabling research. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), originally enacted in 1996, continued to influence EHR development throughout the 2000s with its privacy and security rules, which were critical in shaping how EHR systems handled sensitive patient data [230,231].
Deidentification, Recoding, Regulatory, and Ethical Considerations
In the clinical care setting, information is recorded into EHRs by various health care professionals, including physicians, nurses, medical assistants, and other clinical staff. The accuracy and completeness of the data entered depend heavily on the documentation practices of these health care providers, which can vary between institutions and countries [232]. In some cases, administrative staff may also input data related to billing and patient demographics. It is important to note that these data inputs are primarily geared toward patient management rather than research, which introduces variations and challenges when using EHR data for secondary research purposes. One of the most crucial steps in preparing EHR data for research is deidentification, which involves removing or masking identifiable patient information (eg, names, addresses, and social security numbers) to protect patient privacy. Data security and privacy concerns often influence how EHR data are accessed and used for research. Institutions often have governance committees or data access boards that review research proposals to ensure they comply with ethical guidelines and data use policies. However, these regulations vary from country to country and system to system. In the United States, HIPAA regulations define strict guidelines for deidentification and the secondary use of health data. Institutions may use institutional review boards to oversee the approval process for research using EHR data [230]. In the European Union, under General Data Protection Regulation, pseudonymization and data minimization are encouraged, and the use of EHR data for research typically requires explicit patient consent unless an exemption is granted [233]. In the United Kingdom, the NHS has implemented the use of trusted research environments to facilitate secure access to health data for research while ensuring patient privacy [234].
Given the differences in regulations across countries, researchers must familiarize themselves with the specific legal and ethical requirements of the country where the EHR data are stored and where the research will be conducted. When conducting international or multicountry research, researchers need to consider how differing regulations affect data sharing, processing, and consent. Cross-border collaboration may require legal agreements, such as data transfer agreements, that meet all involved jurisdictions’ requirements. Regardless of the region, maintaining high standards for data security and privacy is crucial. Researchers should use practices such as data pseudonymization, anonymization, encryption, and secure data storage to protect patient information throughout the research process [235].
Despite the progress, researchers continued to face challenges with the interoperability of EHR systems. The ability to share and integrate data across different platforms and health care institutions was still limited, posing hurdles to multisite studies and collaborative research efforts. Addressing these challenges became a priority for advancing the use of EHRs in research. As the use of EHR data in research grew, concerns about patient privacy and data security also increased. Increased attention to regulatory and ethical issues surrounding the use of health information came up. Policies and guidelines, such as the HIPAA in the United States and the General Data Protection Regulation in the European Union [233,236,237], were updated to ensure the protection of patient information while facilitating research. Despite these concerns, all the efforts during this time underscore a shift toward a more holistic approach to evidence generation, aiming to improve patient outcomes and health care decision-making by bridging the gap between research such as clinical trials and real-world practice.
Meanwhile, researchers also encountered challenges during the use of EHRs on the common data models and data cleaning complexities. Although the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute has made great efforts to this issue by establishing the PCORnet common data model [238-240] and the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics consortium has developed the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model [241-243], significant challenges remain in achieving interoperability between different EHR systems and health care databases. This inconsistency can hinder the seamless exchange and integration of health data for comprehensive analyses. Common data models rely on the assumption that data across systems can be standardized into a uniform format. However, variations in how data are recorded, missing information, and inconsistent use of terminologies across different EHR systems can lead to gaps and inconsistencies that affect data quality and utility. For the concerns of data cleaning and linkage, although several standardized coding systems (ie, International Classification of Diseases, Current Procedural Terminology, Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System, Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes, Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine, etc] were introduced in the EHRs, they still contain a vast amount of unstructured or semistructured data, including free-text clinical notes [244]. Cleaning such data to extract meaningful information may require other tools and algorithms, such as SQL environment [MySQL version 8.4.0; Oracle Corporation] and Python [version 3.8.5; Python Software Foundation]), which can be resource intensive and complex to develop and apply for researchers without computer science backgrounds. Patients’ data are often shared among different EHR systems, including primary care and specialty registries. Linking these fragmented data sources to achieve a holistic view of a patient’s health history is challenging but essential for effective research and care management.
Data Quality, Standardization, Patient Engagement, Cost, Data Cleaning, and Global Health Disparities
Ensuring high-quality, standardized data entry into EHRs is challenging yet essential for effective health care delivery and research. Inconsistent data, incomplete records, and variation in data capture practices can compromise the reliability and usefulness of EHR data for clinical decision-making and research purposes. While patient portals and digital access to health records aim to empower patients, engaging patients effectively remains a challenge. Issues such as digital literacy, accessibility, and varying levels of interest in active health management can affect the extent to which patients use EHRs to participate in their care [245].
For many health care providers, particularly smaller practices and those in low-resource settings, the cost of EHR implementation and ongoing maintenance is a significant barrier [246,247]. In addition, the process of transitioning from paper-based systems to EHRs, or switching between EHR systems, can be disruptive and resource intensive. Global disparities in EHR adoption and use highlight the challenge of ensuring equitable access to the benefits of digital health records. Differences in infrastructure, funding, and health care policies contribute to varying levels of EHR integration and use worldwide. Integrating AI and advanced analytics into EHR systems presents both opportunities and challenges. While these technologies have the potential to transform health care delivery and research, they also raise questions about data accuracy, algorithmic bias, and the interpretability of AI-generated insights.
Limitations
Despite extensive literature searches across three databases and rigorous literature screening processes, our systematic review still faces some limitations. First, publication bias remains a concern, as studies reporting positive or significant findings are more likely to be published and thus overrepresented in our review. In addition, studies on EHR are highly heterogeneous. Variations in study design, populations, interventions, outcomes, and methodologies complicate meaningful synthesis and generalization of findings. Finally, some relevant studies may be unpublished, inaccessible, or have incomplete data, resulting in restricting data collection and limiting the overall comprehensiveness of our review.
Conclusions
The evolution of EHRs marks a significant milestone in health care’s journey toward integrating technology and medicine. From early documentation practices to the sophisticated use of AI and big data analytics today, EHRs have become central to improving patient care, enhancing public health surveillance, and advancing medical research. As we look forward, the integration of SDOH, genomic data, and real-time analytics into EHRs promises to further personalize medicine, improve disease prevention strategies, and address health disparities. Collaborative efforts across borders, disciplines, and sectors will be crucial in realizing the full potential of EHRs in shaping a healthier future for all.
Acknowledgments
GH is partially supported by the grant from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (U54GM104940) of the National Institutes of Health. YS and GH are partially supported by a grant from the Public University Partnership Program at the Louisiana Department of Health Bureau of Health Services Financing.
Abbreviations
- AI
artificial intelligence
- CIPHER
Centralized Interactive Phenomics Resource
- EHR
electronic health record
- EMA
European Medicines Agency
- FDA
Food and Drug Administration
- HIPAA
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
- HITECH
Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act
- ICU
intensive care unit
- NHS
National Health Service
- NLP
natural language processing
- PCT
pragmatic clinical trial
- PHEIC
public health emergency of international concern
- POMR
problem-oriented medical record
- PRISMA
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
- RMRS
Regenstrief Medical Record System
- RWE
real-world evidence
- SDOH
social determinants of health
- UKB
UK Biobank
PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist.
Footnotes
Authors' Contributions: YS and JY conducted the search and wrote the manuscript. JZ and GH performed the literature review and edited the manuscript. JZ is the guarantor of this work and, as such, has full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analyses. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest: None declared.
References
- 1.Hu S. A contribution to our knowledge of Leonurus L., i-mu-ts'ao, the Chinese motherwort. Am J Chin Med (Gard City N Y) 1976 Apr 05;4(3):219–37. doi: 10.1142/s0192415x76000305. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Hajar R. The air of history early medicine to galen (part I) Heart Views. 2012;13(3):120–8. doi: 10.4103/1995-705x.102164. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Lorkowski J, Pokorski M. Medical records: a historical narrative. Biomedicines. 2022 Oct 17;10(10):2594. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines10102594. https://www.mdpi.com/resolver?pii=biomedicines10102594 .biomedicines10102594 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Keyser PT, Scarborough J. Oxford Handbook of Science and Medicine in the Classical World. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2018. [Google Scholar]
- 5.Guénel A. The creation of the first overseas Pasteur Institute, or the beginning of Albert Calmette's Pastorian career. Med Hist. 1999 Jan 16;43(1):1–25. doi: 10.1017/s0025727300064693. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/10885131 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Blevins SM, Bronze MS. Robert Koch and the 'golden age' of bacteriology. Int J Infect Dis. 2010 Sep;14(9):e744–51. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2009.12.003. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1201-9712(10)02314-3 .S1201-9712(10)02314-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Donahue MP. Nursing, the Finest Art: An Illustrated History. Maryland Heights, MI: Mosby; 1996. [Google Scholar]
- 8.Gunn SW, Masellis M. Concepts and Practice of Humanitarian Medicine. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 2008. [Google Scholar]
- 9.Evans RS. Electronic health records: then, now, and in the future. Yearb Med Inform. 2016 May 20;Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S48–61. doi: 10.15265/IYS-2016-s006. http://www.thieme-connect.com/DOI/DOI?10.15265/IYS-2016-s006 .me2016-s006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Buntin MB, Jain SH, Blumenthal D. Health information technology: laying the infrastructure for national health reform. Health Aff (Millwood) 2010 Jun;29(6):1214–9. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0503.29/6/1214 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Conde C. Mum's the word: feds are serious about protecting patients' privacy. Tex Med. 2010 Aug 01;106(8):49–53. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Goldstein MM, Thorpe Jane H. The first anniversary of the health information technology for economic and clinical health (HITECH) act: the regulatory outlook for implementation. Perspect Health Inf Manag. 2010 Sep 01;7(Summer):1c. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/20808607 .1c [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Kocher R, Emanuel EJ, DeParle NA. The Affordable Care Act and the future of clinical medicine: the opportunities and challenges. Ann Intern Med. 2010 Oct 19;153(8):536–9. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-153-8-201010190-00274. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/abs/10.7326/0003-4819-153-8-201010190-00274?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub0pubmed .0003-4819-153-8-201010190-00274 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Weed LL. Medical records that guide and teach. N Engl J Med. 1968 Mar 21;278(12):652–7 concl. doi: 10.1056/NEJM196803212781204. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Esterhay RJ Jr, Vogel VG, Fortner CL, Shapiro HM, Wiernik PH. Cost analysis of leukemia treatment: a problem-oriented approach. Cancer. 1976 Feb;37(2):646–52. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(197602)37:2<646::aid-cncr2820370206>3.0.co;2-l. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Dinsdale SM, Gent M, Kline G, Milner R. Problem oriented medical records: their impact on staff communication, attitudes and decision making. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1975 Jun;56(6):269–74. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Liston EH. Use of problem-oriented medical record in psychiatry: a survey of university-based residency training programs. Am J Psychiatry. 1976 Jun;133(6):700–3. doi: 10.1176/ajp.133.6.700. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Best R, Bowen G, Magill K, Morrell C. POMR for operating and recovery rooms. Superv Nurse. 1976 Aug;7(8):18–22. doi: 10.1097/00006247-197608000-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Switz DM. The problem-oriented medical record: evaluation and management of anemia before and during use. Arch Intern Med. 1976 Oct 01;136(10):1119–23. doi: 10.1001/archinte.1976.03630100031010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Burroughs AK. Medical students, medical records and clinical skills. Med Educ. 1978 Nov;12(6):446–52. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.1978.tb01426.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.De Clercq E, Van Casteren V, Jonckheer P, Burggraeve P, Lafontaine MF, Degroote K, France FR. Are problem-oriented medial records (POMR) suitable for use in GPs' daily practice? Stud Health Technol Inform. 2007;129(Pt 1):68–72. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Carey IM, Cook DG, De Wilde S, Bremner SA, Richards N, Caine S, Strachan DP, Hilton SR. Implications of the problem orientated medical record (POMR) for research using electronic GP databases: a comparison of the Doctors Independent Network Database (DIN) and the General Practice Research Database (GPRD) BMC Fam Pract. 2003 Sep 30;4(1):14. doi: 10.1186/1471-2296-4-14. https://bmcfampract.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2296-4-14 .1471-2296-4-14 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Donnelly WJ. Viewpoint: patient-centered medical care requires a patient-centered medical record. Acad Med. 2005 Jan;80(1):33–8. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200501000-00009.80/1/33 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.McDonald CJ, Tierney WM, Martin DK, Overhage JM, Day Z. The Regenstrief medical record: 1991 a campus-wide system. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care. 1991:925–8. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/1807754 . [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.McDonald CJ, Overhage JM, Tierney WM, Dexter PR, Martin DK, Suico JG, Zafar A, Schadow G, Blevins L, Glazener T, Meeks-Johnson J, Lemmon L, Warvel J, Porterfield B, Warvel J, Cassidy P, Lindbergh D, Belsito A, Tucker M, Williams B, Wodniak C. The Regenstrief Medical Record System: a quarter century experience. Int J Med Inform. 1999 Jun;54(3):225–53. doi: 10.1016/s1386-5056(99)00009-x.S138650569900009X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Murray MD, Tierney WM, Brater DC. Determining the effectiveness of torasemide and furosemide in heart failure: design of a randomised comparison using the regenstrief medical record system. Clin Drug Investig. 1998;16(1):45–52. doi: 10.2165/00044011-199816010-00006.160106 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Burton MM, Simonaitis L, Schadow G. Medication and indication linkage: a practical therapy for the problem list? AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2008 Nov 06;2008:86–90. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/18999215 . [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Overhage J, McDonald CJ, Suico JG. The regenstrief medical record system 2000: expanding the breadth and depth of a community wide EMR. Proc AMIA Symp. 2000:1173. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/11080027 .D200720 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Friedman CP, Dev P. Education and informatics: it's time to join forces. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1996;3(2):184–5. doi: 10.1136/jamia.1996.96236286. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/8653454 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Jensen PB, Jensen LJ, Brunak S. Mining electronic health records: towards better research applications and clinical care. Nat Rev Genet. 2012 May 02;13(6):395–405. doi: 10.1038/nrg3208.nrg3208 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Fernández-Breis JT, Maldonado JA, Marcos M, Legaz-García MC, Moner D, Torres-Sospedra J, Esteban-Gil A, Martínez-Salvador B, Robles M. Leveraging electronic healthcare record standards and semantic web technologies for the identification of patient cohorts. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013 Dec;20(e2):e288–96. doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2013-001923. https://riunet.upv.es/handle/10251/44370 .amiajnl-2013-001923 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Slutsky JR, Clancy CM. Patient-centered comparative effectiveness research: essential for high-quality care. Arch Intern Med. 2010 Mar 08;170(5):403–4. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2010.5.170/5/403 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Weitzman ER, Kaci L, Mandl KD. Sharing medical data for health research: the early personal health record experience. J Med Internet Res. 2010 May 25;12(2):e14. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1356. https://www.jmir.org/2010/2/e14/ v12i2e14 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology‚ Department of Health and Human Services Establishment of the temporary certification program for health information technology. Final rule. Fed Regist. 2010 Jun 24;75(121):36157–209. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-14999.pdf . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Epstein RS, Teagarden JR. Comparative effectiveness research and personalized medicine: catalyzing or colliding? Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(10):905–13. doi: 10.2165/11535830-000000000-00000.13 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Kush RD, Helton E, Rockhold FW, Hardison CD. Electronic health records, medical research, and the tower of babel. N Engl J Med. 2008 Apr 17;358(16):1738–40. doi: 10.1056/nejmsb0800209. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Pearson JF, Brownstein CA, Brownstein JS. Potential for electronic health records and online social networking to redefine medical research. Clin Chem. 2011 Feb;57(2):196–204. doi: 10.1373/clinchem.2010.148668. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/21159898 .clinchem.2010.148668 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Classen DC, Pestotnik SL, Evans RS, Lloyd JF, Burke JP. Adverse drug events in hospitalized patients. Excess length of stay, extra costs, and attributable mortality. JAMA. 1997;277(4):301–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Bourgeois FT, Mandl KD, Valim C, Shannon MW. Pediatric adverse drug events in the outpatient setting: an 11-year national analysis. Pediatrics. 2009 Oct;124(4):e744–50. doi: 10.1542/peds.2008-3505. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/19786435 .peds.2008-3505 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Dore DD, Seeger JD, Arnold Chan K. Use of a claims-based active drug safety surveillance system to assess the risk of acute pancreatitis with exenatide or sitagliptin compared to metformin or glyburide. Curr Med Res Opin. 2009 Apr 12;25(4):1019–27. doi: 10.1185/03007990902820519. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Brownstein JS, Sordo M, Kohane IS, Mandl KD. The tell-tale heart: population-based surveillance reveals an association of rofecoxib and celecoxib with myocardial infarction. PLoS One. 2007 Sep 05;2(9):e840. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000840. https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000840 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Stang PE, Ryan PB, Racoosin JA, Overhage JM, Hartzema AG, Reich C, Welebob E, Scarnecchia T, Woodcock J. Advancing the science for active surveillance: rationale and design for the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership. Ann Intern Med. 2010 Nov 02;153(9):600–6. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-153-9-201011020-00010.153/9/600 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Kuzmak PM, Dayhoff RE. The use of Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) in the integration of imaging into the electronic patient record at the Department of Veterans Affairs. J Digit Imaging. 2000 May;13(S1):133–7. doi: 10.1007/bf03167644. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Noumeir R, Lemay A, Lina JM. Pseudonymization of radiology data for research purposes. J Digit Imaging. 2007 Sep;20(3):284–95. doi: 10.1007/s10278-006-1051-4. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/17191099 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Nagy M, Hanzlícek P, Precková P, Ríha A, Dioszegi M, Seidl L, Zvárová J. Semantic interoperability in Czech healthcare environment supported by HL7 version 3. Methods Inf Med. 2018 Jan 17;49(02):186–95. doi: 10.3414/me09-02-0018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Soriano E, Plazzotta F, Campos F, Kaminker D, Cancio A, Aguilera Díaz J, Luna D, Seehaus A, Carcía Mónaco R, de Quirós FG. Integration of healthcare information: from enterprise PACS to patient centered multimedia health record. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2010;160(Pt 1):126–30. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Mold F, de Lusignan S, Sheikh A, Majeed A, Wyatt JC, Quinn T, Cavill M, Franco C, Chauhan U, Blakey H, Kataria N, Arvanitis TN, Ellis B. Patients' online access to their electronic health records and linked online services: a systematic review in primary care. Br J Gen Pract. 2015 Mar;65(632):e141–51. doi: 10.3399/bjgp15X683941. https://bjgp.org/lookup/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=25733435 .65/632/e141 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Rubbo B, Fitzpatrick NK, Denaxas S, Daskalopoulou M, Yu N, Patel RS, UK Biobank Follow-up and Outcomes Working Group. Hemingway H. Use of electronic health records to ascertain, validate and phenotype acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review and recommendations. Int J Cardiol. 2015 May;187:705–11. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.03.075. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0167-5273(15)00313-7 .S0167-5273(15)00313-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Shankar-Hari M, Phillips GS, Levy ML, Seymour CW, Liu VX, Deutschman CS, Angus DC, Rubenfeld GD, Singer M. Developing a new definition and assessing new clinical criteria for septic shock: for the third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (sepsis-3) JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):775–87. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.0289. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/26903336 .2492876 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Bush RA, Pérez A, Baum T, Etland C, Connelly CD. A systematic review of the use of the electronic health record for patient identification, communication, and clinical support in palliative care. JAMIA Open. 2018 Oct 01;1(2):294–303. doi: 10.1093/jamiaopen/ooy028. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/30842998 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Riordan F, McHugh SM, O'Donovan C, Mtshede MN, Kearney PM. The role of physician and practice characteristics in the quality of diabetes management in primary care: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gen Intern Med. 2020 Jun;35(6):1836–48. doi: 10.1007/s11606-020-05676-7. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/32016700 .10.1007/s11606-020-05676-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Liu LH, Choden S, Yazdany J. Quality improvement initiatives in rheumatology: an integrative review of the last 5 years. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2019 Mar;31(2):98–108. doi: 10.1097/BOR.0000000000000586. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/30608250 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Tavares MG, Tedesco-Silva Junior H, Pestana JO. Early Hospital Readmission (EHR) in kidney transplantation: a review article. Braz J Nephrol. 2020 Jun;42(2):231–7. doi: 10.1590/2175-8239-jbn-2019-0089. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Sajatovic M, Welter E, Tatsuoka C, Perzynski AT, Einstadter D. Electronic medical record analysis of emergency room visits and hospitalizations in individuals with epilepsy and mental illness comorbidity. Epilepsy Behav. 2015 Sep;50:55–60. doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2015.05.016. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/26119621 .S1525-5050(15)00267-X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Lu M, Rupp LB, Moorman AC, Li J, Zhang T, Lamerato LE, Holmberg SD, Spradling PR, Teshale EH, Vijayadeva V, Boscarino JA, Schmidt MA, Nerenz DR, Gordon SC. Comparative effectiveness research of chronic hepatitis B and C cohort study (CHeCS): improving data collection and cohort identification. Dig Dis Sci. 2014 Dec 17;59(12):3053–61. doi: 10.1007/s10620-014-3272-6. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/25030940 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Baldwin-Hunter BL, Knotts RM, Leeds SD, Rubenstein JH, Lightdale CJ, Abrams JA. Use of the electronic health record to target patients for non-endoscopic Barrett's esophagus screening. Dig Dis Sci. 2019 Dec 4;64(12):3463–70. doi: 10.1007/s10620-019-05707-2. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/31273597 .10.1007/s10620-019-05707-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Shen Y, Zhou J, Hu G. Practical use of electronic health records among patients with diabetes in scientific research. Chin Med J (Engl) 2020 May 20;133(10):1224–30. doi: 10.1097/CM9.0000000000000784. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/32433055 .00029330-202005200-00012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Reed M, Huang J, Graetz I, Brand R, Hsu J, Fireman B, Jaffe M. Outpatient electronic health records and the clinical care and outcomes of patients with diabetes mellitus. Ann Intern Med. 2012 Oct 02;157(7):482–9. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-157-7-201210020-00004. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/23027319 .1363513 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Schmittdiel JA, Raebel MA, Dyer W, Xu S, Goodrich GK, Schroeder EB, Segal JB, O' Connor PJ, Nichols GA, Lawrence JM, Kirchner HL, Karter AJ, Lafata JE, Butler MG, Steiner JF. Prescription medication burden in patients with newly diagnosed diabetes: a SUrveillance, PREvention, and ManagEment of Diabetes Mellitus (SUPREME-DM) study. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003) 2014;54(4):374–82. doi: 10.1331/JAPhA.2014.13195. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/24860866 .S1544-3191(15)30211-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Coleman KJ, Haneuse S, Johnson E, Bogart A, Fisher D, O'Connor PJ, Sherwood NE, Sidney S, Theis MK, Anau J, Schroeder EB, O'Brien R, Arterburn D. Long-term microvascular disease outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes after bariatric surgery: evidence for the legacy effect of surgery. Diabetes Care. 2016 Aug;39(8):1400–7. doi: 10.2337/dc16-0194. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/27271192 .dc16-0194 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Schreiweis B, Grüber G, Bergh B. First experiences in implementing a software-based support for patient recruitment at Heidelberg university hospital. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2012;180:1147–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62.van Staa TP, Dyson L, McCann G, Padmanabhan S, Belatri R, Goldacre B, Cassell J, Pirmohamed M, Torgerson D, Ronaldson S, Adamson J, Taweel A, Delaney B, Mahmood S, Baracaia S, Round T, Fox R, Hunter T, Gulliford M, Smeeth L. The opportunities and challenges of pragmatic point-of-care randomised trials using routinely collected electronic records: evaluations of two exemplar trials. Health Technol Assess. 2014 Jul;18(43):1–146. doi: 10.3310/hta18430. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta18430 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63.North CS, Hong BA, Adewuyi SA, Pollio DE, Jain MK, Devereaux R, Quartey NA, Ashitey S, Lee WM, Lisker-Melman M. Hepatitis C treatment and SVR: the gap between clinical trials and real-world treatment aspirations. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2013 Mar;35(2):122–8. doi: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2012.11.002.S0163-8343(12)00336-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64.Neuman HB, Greenberg CC. Comparative effectiveness research: opportunities in surgical oncology. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2014 Jan;24(1):43–8. doi: 10.1016/j.semradonc.2013.09.003.S1053-4296(13)00082-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65.Saeed S, Strumpf EC, Walmsley SL, Rollet-Kurhajec K, Pick N, Martel-Laferrière V, Hull M, Gill MJ, Cox J, Cooper C, Klein MB, Canadian Co-Infection Cohort Study. Cohen J, Conway B, Cooper C, Côté P, Cox J, Gill J, Haider S, Harris M, Haase D, Hull M, Montaner J, Moodie E, Pick N, Rachlis A, Rouleau D, Sandre R, Tyndall JM, Vachon ML, Walmsley S, Wong D. How generalizable are the results from trials of direct antiviral agents to people coinfected with HIV/HCV in the real world? Clin Infect Dis. 2016 Apr 01;62(7):919–26. doi: 10.1093/cid/civ1222. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/26743093 .civ1222 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66.Parkinson B, Viney R, Haas M, Goodall S, Srasuebkul P, Pearson SA. Real-world evidence: a comparison of the Australian Herceptin program and clinical trials of trastuzumab for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016 Oct 20;34(10):1039–50. doi: 10.1007/s40273-016-0411-2.10.1007/s40273-016-0411-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67.Peralta CA, Frigaard M, Rubinsky AD, Rolon L, Lo L, Voora S, Seal K, Tuot D, Chao S, Lui K, Chiao P, Powe N, Shlipak M. Implementation of a pragmatic randomized trial of screening for chronic kidney disease to improve care among non-diabetic hypertensive veterans. BMC Nephrol. 2017 Apr 12;18(1):132. doi: 10.1186/s12882-017-0541-6. https://bmcnephrol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12882-017-0541-6 .10.1186/s12882-017-0541-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68.Hills T, Semprini A, Beasley R. Pragmatic randomised clinical trials using electronic health records: general practitioner views on a model of a priori consent. Trials. 2018 May 16;19(1):278. doi: 10.1186/s13063-018-2658-8. https://trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13063-018-2658-8 .10.1186/s13063-018-2658-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69.Pfaff E, Lee A, Bradford R, Pae J, Potter C, Blue P, Knoepp P, Thompson K, Roumie CL, Crenshaw D, Servis R, DeWalt DA. Recruiting for a pragmatic trial using the electronic health record and patient portal: successes and lessons learned. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2019 Jan 01;26(1):44–9. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocy138. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/30445631 .5185594 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70.Ford I, Norrie J. Pragmatic trials. N Engl J Med. 2016 Aug 04;375(5):454–63. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1510059. https://eprints.gla.ac.uk/123342 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71.Weinfurt KP, Hernandez AF, Coronado GD, DeBar LL, Dember LM, Green BB, Heagerty PJ, Huang SS, James KT, Jarvik JG, Larson EB, Mor V, Platt R, Rosenthal GE, Septimus EJ, Simon GE, Staman KL, Sugarman J, Vazquez M, Zatzick D, Curtis LH. Pragmatic clinical trials embedded in healthcare systems: generalizable lessons from the NIH Collaboratory. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017 Sep 18;17(1):144. doi: 10.1186/s12874-017-0420-7. https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-017-0420-7 .10.1186/s12874-017-0420-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72.Loudon K, Treweek S, Sullivan F, Donnan P, Thorpe KE, Zwarenstein M. The PRECIS-2 tool: designing trials that are fit for purpose. BMJ. 2015 May 08;350:h2147. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h2147. https://core.ac.uk/reader/42544530?utm_source=linkout . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73.Smalley JB, Merritt MW, Al-Khatib SM, McCall D, Staman KL, Stepnowsky C. Ethical responsibilities toward indirect and collateral participants in pragmatic clinical trials. Clin Trials. 2015 Oct 15;12(5):476–84. doi: 10.1177/1740774515597698. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/26374687 .1740774515597698 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74.Kalkman S, van Thiel GJ, Grobbee DE, Meinecke AK, Zuidgeest MG, van Delden JJ. Stakeholders' views on the ethical challenges of pragmatic trials investigating pharmaceutical drugs. Trials. 2016 Aug 22;17(1):419. doi: 10.1186/s13063-016-1546-3. https://trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13063-016-1546-3 .10.1186/s13063-016-1546-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75.Wang G, Zhang Z, Ayala C. Hospitalization costs associated with hypertension as a secondary diagnosis among insured patients aged 18-64 years. Am J Hypertens. 2010 Mar 01;23(3):275–81. doi: 10.1038/ajh.2009.241.ajh2009241 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76.Rendas-Baum R, Yang M, Gricar J, Wallenstein GV. Cost-effectiveness analysis of treatments for premenstrual dysphoric disorder. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2010;8(2):129–40. doi: 10.2165/11532210-000000000-00000.6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77.McEwen LN, Coelho RB, Baumann LM, Bilik D, Nota-Kirby B, Herman WH. The cost, quality of life impact, and cost-utility of bariatric surgery in a managed care population. Obes Surg. 2010 Jul 6;20(7):919–28. doi: 10.1007/s11695-010-0169-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78.Natarajan K, Stein D, Jain S, Elhadad N. An analysis of clinical queries in an electronic health record search utility. Int J Med Inform. 2010 Jul;79(7):515–22. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2010.03.004. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/20418155 .S1386-5056(10)00063-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79.Persell SD, Kaiser D, Dolan NC, Andrews B, Levi S, Khandekar J, Gavagan T, Thompson JA, Friesema EM, Baker DW. Changes in performance after implementation of a multifaceted electronic-health-record-based quality improvement system. Med Care. 2011 Feb;49(2):117–25. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e318202913d. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 80.Russ AL, Saleem JJ, Justice CF, Woodward-Hagg H, Woodbridge PA, Doebbeling BN. Electronic health information in use: characteristics that support employee workflow and patient care. Health Informatics J. 2010 Dec;16(4):287–305. doi: 10.1177/1460458210365981. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1460458210365981?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub0pubmed .16/4/287 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81.Framework for FDA’s real-world evidence program. U.S. Food & Drug Administration. 2018. Dec, [2024-12-29]. https://www.fda.gov/media/120060/download .
- 82.Real-world evidence framework to support EU regulatory decision-making: 2nd report on the experience gained with regulator-led studies from February 2023 to February 2024. European Medicines Agency. [2024-12-26]. https://tinyurl.com/mwju2nzv .
- 83.Fischer MA, Asch SM. The future of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) J Gen Intern Med. 2019 Nov 16;34(11):2291–2. doi: 10.1007/s11606-019-05324-9. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/31529376 .10.1007/s11606-019-05324-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 84.Ellis LE, Kass NE. How are PCORI-funded researchers engaging patients in research and what are the ethical implications? AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2017 Jun 28;8(1):1–10. doi: 10.1080/23294515.2016.1206045. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 85.Corrigan-Curay J, Sacks L, Woodcock J. Real-world evidence and real-world data for evaluating drug safety and effectiveness. JAMA. 2018 Sep 04;320(9):867–8. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.10136.2697359 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 86.Wedam S, Fashoyin-Aje L, Bloomquist E, Tang S, Sridhara R, Goldberg KB, Theoret MR, Amiri-Kordestani L, Pazdur R, Beaver JA. FDA approval summary: palbociclib for male patients with metastatic breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2020 Mar 15;26(6):1208–12. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-2580.1078-0432.CCR-19-2580 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 87.Marcus L, Fashoyin-Aje LA, Donoghue M, Yuan M, Rodriguez L, Gallagher PS, Philip R, Ghosh S, Theoret MR, Beaver JA, Pazdur R, Lemery SJ. FDA approval summary: pembrolizumab for the treatment of tumor mutational burden-high solid tumors. Clin Cancer Res. 2021 Sep 01;27(17):4685–9. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-0327. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/34083238 .1078-0432.CCR-21-0327 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 88.Pulte ED, Vallejo J, Przepiorka D, Nie L, Farrell AT, Goldberg KB, McKee AE, Pazdur R. FDA supplemental approval: blinatumomab for treatment of relapsed and refractory precursor B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Oncologist. 2018 Nov;23(11):1366–71. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2018-0179. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/30018129 .theoncologist.2018-0179 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 89.de Claro RA, McGinn KM, Verdun N, Lee SL, Chiu HJ, Saber H, Brower ME, Chang CJ, Pfuma E, Habtemariam B, Bullock J, Wang Y, Nie L, Chen XH, Lu DR, Al-Hakim A, Kane RC, Kaminskas E, Justice R, Farrell AT, Pazdur R. FDA approval: ibrutinib for patients with previously treated mantle cell lymphoma and previously treated chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Clin Cancer Res. 2015 Aug 15;21(16):3586–90. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-2225.21/16/3586 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 90.Gauthier-Loiselle M, Cloutier M, Toro W, Patel A, Shi S, Davidson M, Bischof M, LaMarca N, Dabbous O. Nusinersen for spinal muscular atrophy in the United States: findings from a retrospective claims database analysis. Adv Ther. 2021 Dec;38(12):5809–28. doi: 10.1007/s12325-021-01938-w. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/34713391 .10.1007/s12325-021-01938-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 91.Brenner DM, Sayuk GS. Current US Food and Drug Administration-approved pharmacologic therapies for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea. Adv Ther. 2020 Jan;37(1):83–96. doi: 10.1007/s12325-019-01116-z.10.1007/s12325-019-01116-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 92.Reeves JJ, Hollandsworth HM, Torriani FJ, Taplitz R, Abeles S, Tai-Seale M, Millen M, Clay BJ, Longhurst CA. Rapid response to COVID-19: health informatics support for outbreak management in an academic health system. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020 Jun 01;27(6):853–9. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocaa037. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/32208481 .5811358 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 93.Chen H, Guo J, Wang C, Luo F, Yu X, Zhang W, Li J, Zhao D, Xu D, Gong Q, Liao J, Yang H, Hou W, Zhang Y. Clinical characteristics and intrauterine vertical transmission potential of COVID-19 infection in nine pregnant women: a retrospective review of medical records. Lancet. 2020 Mar 07;395(10226):809–15. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30360-3. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/32151335 .S0140-6736(20)30360-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 94.Pung R, Chiew CJ, Young BE, Chin S, Chen MI, Clapham HE, Cook AR, Maurer-Stroh S, Toh MP, Poh C, Low M, Lum J, Koh VT, Mak TM, Cui L, Lin RV, Heng D, Leo YS, Lye DC, Lee VJ. Investigation of three clusters of COVID-19 in Singapore: implications for surveillance and response measures. Lancet. 2020 Mar 28;395(10229):1039–46. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30528-6. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/32192580 .S0140-6736(20)30528-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 95.Chen T, Wu D, Chen H, Yan W, Yang D, Chen G, Ma K, Xu D, Yu H, Wang H, Wang T, Guo W, Chen J, Ding C, Zhang X, Huang J, Han M, Li S, Luo X, Zhao J, Ning Q. Clinical characteristics of 113 deceased patients with coronavirus disease 2019: retrospective study. BMJ. 2020 Mar 26;368:m1091. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m1091. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 96.Qiu H, Wu J, Hong L, Luo Y, Song Q, Chen D. Clinical and epidemiological features of 36 children with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Zhejiang, China: an observational cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 Jun;20(6):689–96. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30198-5. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/32220650 .S1473-3099(20)30198-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 97.Lei Z, Cao H, Jie Y, Huang Z, Guo X, Chen J, Peng L, Cao H, Dai X, Liu J, Li X, Zhu J, Xu W, Chen D, Gao Z, He JR, Lin BL. A cross-sectional comparison of epidemiological and clinical features of patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in Wuhan and outside Wuhan, China. Travel Med Infect Dis. 2020 May;35:101664. doi: 10.1016/j.tmaid.2020.101664. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/32278758 .S1477-8939(20)30132-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 98.Tan C, Huang Y, Shi F, Tan K, Ma Q, Chen Y, Jiang X, Li X. C-reactive protein correlates with computed tomographic findings and predicts severe COVID-19 early. J Med Virol. 2020 Jul 25;92(7):856–62. doi: 10.1002/jmv.25871. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/32281668 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 99.COVID-19 Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC): global research and innovation forum: towards a research roadmap. World Health Organization. 2020. Feb 12, [2024-12-29]. https://tinyurl.com/2vrr996d .
- 100.Burki T. WHO ends the COVID-19 public health emergency. Lancet Respir Med. 2023 Jul;11(7):588. doi: 10.1016/s2213-2600(23)00217-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 101.Dirlikov E, Zhou S, Han L, Li Z, Hao L, Millman AJ, Marston B. Use of public data to describe COVID-19 contact tracing in Hubei Province and non-Hubei provinces in China between 20 January and 29 February 2020. Western Pac Surveill Response J. 2021 Sep 30;12(3):82–7. doi: 10.5365/wpsar.2021.12.3.808. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/34703640 .wpsar.2021.12.3-082 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 102.Wang M, Zhao Y, Wei L, Chen D, Yang B, Chen Z. Immunology of transplant patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection: transmission, immune response, and therapeutic strategy. Crit Rev Immunol. 2020;40(6):475–84. doi: 10.1615/critrevimmunol.2020035755. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 103.Ji W, Wang W, Zhao X, Zai J, Li X. Cross-species transmission of the newly identified coronavirus 2019-nCoV. J Med Virol. 2020 Apr 19;92(4):433–40. doi: 10.1002/jmv.25682. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/31967321 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 104.Zhu N, Zhang D, Wang W, Li X, Yang B, Song J, Zhao X, Huang B, Shi W, Lu R, Niu P, Zhan F, Ma X, Wang D, Xu W, Wu G, Gao GF, Tan W. A novel coronavirus from patients with pneumonia in China, 2019. N Engl J Med. 2020 Feb 20;382(8):727–33. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2001017. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/31978945 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 105.Huang C, Wang Y, Li X, Ren L, Zhao J, Hu Y, Zhang L, Fan G, Xu J, Gu X, Cheng Z, Yu T, Xia J, Wei Y, Wu W, Xie X, Yin W, Li H, Liu M, Xiao Y, Gao H, Guo L, Xie J, Wang G, Jiang R, Gao Z, Jin Q, Wang J, Cao B. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. Lancet. 2020 Feb 15;395(10223):497–506. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30183-5. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0140-6736(20)30183-5 .S0140-6736(20)30183-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 106.Chan JF, Yuan S, Kok KH, To KK, Chu H, Yang J, Xing F, Liu J, Yip CC, Poon RW, Tsoi HW, Lo SK, Chan KH, Poon VK, Chan WM, Ip JD, Cai JP, Cheng VC, Chen H, Hui CK, Yuen KY. A familial cluster of pneumonia associated with the 2019 novel coronavirus indicating person-to-person transmission: a study of a family cluster. Lancet. 2020 Feb 15;395(10223):514–23. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30154-9. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0140-6736(20)30154-9 .S0140-6736(20)30154-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 107.Hao R, Zhang Y, Cao Z, Li J, Xu Q, Ye L, Guo X, Zheng T, Song H. Control strategies and their effects on the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 in representative countries. J Biosaf Biosecur. 2021 Dec;3(2):76–81. doi: 10.1016/j.jobb.2021.06.003. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2588-9338(21)00013-3 .S2588-9338(21)00013-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 108.Quan L, Al-Ansi A, Han H. Assessing customer financial risk perception and attitude in the hotel industry: exploring the role of protective measures against COVID-19. Int J Hosp Manag. 2022 Feb;101:103123. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2021.103123. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/34955585 .S0278-4319(21)00266-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 109.Sheikh A, Al-Taher A, Al-Nazawi M, Al-Mubarak AI, Kandeel M. Analysis of preferred codon usage in the coronavirus N genes and their implications for genome evolution and vaccine design. J Virol Methods. 2020 Mar;277:113806. doi: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2019.113806. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/31911390 .S0166-0934(18)30580-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 110.Chan JF, Kok KH, Zhu Z, Chu H, To KK, Yuan S, Yuen KY. Genomic characterization of the 2019 novel human-pathogenic coronavirus isolated from a patient with atypical pneumonia after visiting Wuhan. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2020 Jan 28;9(1):221–36. doi: 10.1080/22221751.2020.1719902. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/10.1080/22221751.2020.1719902?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub0pubmed . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 111.Wan Y, Shang J, Graham R, Baric RS, Li F. Receptor recognition by the novel coronavirus from Wuhan: an analysis based on decade-long structural studies of SARS coronavirus. J Virol. 2020 Mar 17;94(7) doi: 10.1128/jvi.00127-20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 112.Ganesh R, Salonen BR, Bhuiyan MN, Bierle DM, Moehnke D, Haddad TC, Tande AJ, Wilson J, Hurt RT. Managing patients in the COVID-19 pandemic: a virtual multidisciplinary approach. Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes. 2021 Feb;5(1):118–26. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2020.12.003. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2542-4548(20)30256-3 .S2542-4548(20)30256-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 113.Walonoski J, Klaus S, Granger E, Hall D, Gregorowicz A, Neyarapally G, Watson A, Eastman J. Synthea™ Novel coronavirus (COVID-19) model and synthetic data set. Intell Based Med. 2020 Nov;1:100007. doi: 10.1016/j.ibmed.2020.100007. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2666-5212(20)30007-7 .S2666-5212(20)30007-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 114.Luu HS, Filkins LM, Park JY, Rakheja D, Tweed J, Menzies C, Wang VJ, Mittal V, Lehmann CU, Sebert ME. Harnessing the electronic health record and computerized provider order entry data for resource management during the COVID-19 pandemic: development of a decision tree. JMIR Med Inform. 2021 Oct 18;9(10):e32303. doi: 10.2196/32303. https://medinform.jmir.org/2021/10/e32303/ v9i10e32303 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 115.Lonergan PE, Washington Iii SL, Branagan L, Gleason N, Pruthi RS, Carroll PR, Odisho AY. Rapid utilization of telehealth in a comprehensive cancer center as a response to COVID-19: cross-sectional analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2020 Jul 06;22(7):e19322. doi: 10.2196/19322. https://www.jmir.org/2020/7/e19322/ v22i7e19322 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 116.Cronin AO, Carlile MA, Dameff CJ, Coyne CJ, Castillo EM. Leveraging remote research associates during a pandemic. West J Emerg Med. 2020 Jul 21;21(5):1114–7. doi: 10.5811/westjem.2020.6.48043. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/32970563 .westjem.2020.6.48043 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 117.Deeds SA, Hagan SL, Geyer JR, Vanderwarker C, Grandjean MW, Reddy A, Nelson KM. Leveraging an electronic health record note template to standardize screening and testing for COVID-19. Healthc (Amst) 2020 Sep;8(3):100454. doi: 10.1016/j.hjdsi.2020.100454. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/32919584 .S2213-0764(20)30053-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 118.Zhao J, Grabowska ME, Kerchberger VE, Smith JC, Eken HN, Feng Q, Peterson JF, Rosenbloom ST, Johnson KB, Wei WQ. ConceptWAS: a high-throughput method for early identification of COVID-19 presenting symptoms. medRxiv. doi: 10.1101/2020.11.06.20227165. Preprint posted online on November 10, 2020. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/33200151 .2020.11.06.20227165 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 119.Razonable RR, Aloia NC, Anderson RJ, Anil G, Arndt LL, Arndt RF, Ausman SE, Bell SJ, Bierle DM, Billings ML, Bishop RK, Cramer CH, Culbertson TL, Dababneh AS, Derr AN, Epps K, Flaker SM, Ganesh R, Gilmer MA, Urena EG, Gulden CR, Haack TL, Hanson SN, Herzog JR, Heyliger A, Hokanson LD, Hopkins LH, Horecki RJ, Krishna BH, Huskins WC, Jackson TA, Johnson RR, Jorgenson B, Kudrna C, Kennedy BD, Klingsporn MK, Kottke B, Larsen JJ, Lessard SR, Lutwick LI, Malone EJ, Matoush JA, Micallef IN, Moehnke DE, Mohamed M, Ness CN, Olson SM, Orenstein R, Palraj R, Patel J, Paulson DJ, Phelan D, Peinovich MT, Ramsey WL, Rau-Kane TJ, Reid KI, Reinschmidt KJ, Seville MT, Skold EC, Smith JM, Speicher LL, Spielman LA, Springer DJ, Sweeten PW, Tempelis JM, Tulledge-Scheitel S, Vergidis P, Whipple DC, Wilker CG, Destro Borgen MJ. A framework for outpatient infusion of antispike monoclonal antibodies to high-risk patients with mild-to-moderate Coronavirus disease-19: the mayo clinic model. Mayo Clin Proc. 2021 May;96(5):1250–61. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2021.03.010. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/33958056 .S0025-6196(21)00191-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 120.Bardenheier BH, Gravenstein S, Blackman C, Gutman R, Sarkar IN, Feifer RA, White EM, McConeghy K, Nanda A, Mor V. Adverse events following mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccination among U.S. nursing home residents. Vaccine. 2021 Jun 29;39(29):3844–51. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.05.088. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/34092431 .S0264-410X(21)00683-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 121.Thompson LA, Gurka MJ, Filipp SL, Schatz DA, Mercado RE, Ostrov DA, Atkinson MA, Rasmussen SA. The influence of selection bias on identifying an association between allergy medication use and SARS-CoV-2 infection. EClinicalMedicine. 2021 Jul;37:100936. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.100936. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2589-5370(21)00216-9 .S2589-5370(21)00216-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 122.McMurry R, Lenehan P, Awasthi S, Silvert E, Puranik A, Pawlowski C, Venkatakrishnan AJ, Anand P, Agarwal V, O'Horo JC, Gores GJ, Williams AW, Badley AD, Halamka J, Virk A, Swift MD, Carlson K, Doddahonnaiah D, Metzger A, Kayal N, Berner G, Ramudu E, Carpenter C, Wagner T, Rajasekharan A, Soundararajan V. Real-time analysis of a mass vaccination effort confirms the safety of FDA-authorized mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Med. 2021 Aug 13;2(8):965–78.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.medj.2021.06.006. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2666-6340(21)00237-3 .S2666-6340(21)00237-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 123.Bejan CA, Cahill KN, Staso PJ, Choi L, Peterson JF, Phillips EJ. DrugWAS: drug-wide association studies for COVID-19 drug repurposing. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2021 Dec 10;110(6):1537–46. doi: 10.1002/cpt.2376. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/34314511 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 124.Grant WB, Lahore H, McDonnell SL, Baggerly CA, French CB, Aliano JL, Bhattoa HP. Evidence that vitamin D supplementation could reduce risk of influenza and COVID-19 infections and deaths. Nutrients. 2020 Apr 02;12(4):988. doi: 10.3390/nu12040988. https://www.mdpi.com/resolver?pii=nu12040988 .nu12040988 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 125.Grange ES, Neil EJ, Stoffel M, Singh AP, Tseng E, Resco-Summers K, Fellner BJ, Lynch JB, Mathias PC, Mauritz-Miller K, Sutton PR, Leu MG. Responding to COVID-19: the UW medicine information technology services experience. Appl Clin Inform. 2020 Mar;11(2):265–75. doi: 10.1055/s-0040-1709715. http://www.thieme-connect.com/DOI/DOI?10.1055/s-0040-1709715 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 126.Wood SM, White K, Peebles R, Pickel J, Alausa M, Mehringer J, Dowshen N. Outcomes of a rapid adolescent telehealth scale-up during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Adolesc Health. 2020 Aug;67(2):172–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2020.05.025. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/32611509 .S1054-139X(20)30276-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 127.Hoffman PE, London YR, Weerakoon TS, DeLucia NL. Rapidly scaling video visits during COVID-19: the ethos of virtual care at Yale Medicine. Healthc (Amst) 2020 Dec;8(4):100482. doi: 10.1016/j.hjdsi.2020.100482. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2213-0764(20)30081-6 .S2213-0764(20)30081-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 128.Jose T, Warner DO, O'Horo JC, Peters SG, Chaudhry R, Binnicker MJ, Burger CD. Digital health surveillance strategies for management of coronavirus disease 2019. Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes. 2021 Feb;5(1):109–17. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2020.12.004. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2542-4548(20)30257-5 .S2542-4548(20)30257-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 129.Feng S, Shen C, Xia N, Song W, Fan M, Cowling BJ. Rational use of face masks in the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet Respir Med. 2020 May;8(5):434–6. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30134-X. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/32203710 .S2213-2600(20)30134-X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 130.Chu DK, Akl EA, Duda S, Solo K, Yaacoub S, Schünemann HJ. Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2020 Jun 27;395(10242):1973–87. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31142-9. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0140-6736(20)31142-9 .S0140-6736(20)31142-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 131.Haug N, Geyrhofer L, Londei A, Dervic E, Desvars-Larrive A, Loreto V, Pinior B, Thurner S, Klimek P. Ranking the effectiveness of worldwide COVID-19 government interventions. Nat Hum Behav. 2020 Dec;4(12):1303–12. doi: 10.1038/s41562-020-01009-0.10.1038/s41562-020-01009-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 132.Kucirka LM, Lauer SA, Laeyendecker O, Boon D, Lessler J. Variation in false-negative rate of reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction-based SARS-CoV-2 tests by time since exposure. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Aug 18;173(4):262–7. doi: 10.7326/M20-1495. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/abs/10.7326/M20-1495?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub0pubmed . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 133.Yu S, Yang Q, Wu J, Zhu M, Ai J, Zhang H, Xu B, Shao L, Zhang W. Clinical application of Epstein-Barr virus DNA loads in Epstein-Barr virus-associated diseases: a cohort study. J Infect. 2021 Jan;82(1):105–11. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2020.11.027.S0163-4453(20)30722-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 134.L'Huillier AG, Meyer B, Andrey DO, Arm-Vernez I, Baggio S, Didierlaurent A, Eberhardt CS, Eckerle I, Grasset-Salomon C, Huttner A, Posfay-Barbe KM, Royo IS, Pralong JA, Vuilleumier N, Yerly S, Siegrist CA, Kaiser L. Antibody persistence in the first 6 months following SARS-CoV-2 infection among hospital workers: a prospective longitudinal study. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2021 Jan 20;27(5):784.e1–.e8. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2021.01.005. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1198-743X(21)00031-8 .S1198-743X(21)00031-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 135.Mann DM, Chen J, Chunara R, Testa PA, Nov O. COVID-19 transforms health care through telemedicine: evidence from the field. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020 Jul 01;27(7):1132–5. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocaa072. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/32324855 .5824298 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 136.Gilbert AW, Billany JC, Adam R, Martin L, Tobin R, Bagdai S, Galvin N, Farr I, Allain A, Davies L, Bateson J. Rapid implementation of virtual clinics due to COVID-19: report and early evaluation of a quality improvement initiative. BMJ Open Qual. 2020 May;9(2):e000985. doi: 10.1136/bmjoq-2020-000985. https://bmjopenquality.bmj.com/lookup/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=32439740 .bmjoq-2020-000985 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 137.Cocoros NM, Fuller CC, Adimadhyam S, Ball R, Brown JS, Dal Pan GJ, Kluberg SA, Lo Re V, Maro JC, Nguyen M, Orr R, Paraoan D, Perlin J, Poland RE, Driscoll MR, Sands K, Toh S, Yih WK, Platt R. A COVID-19-ready public health surveillance system: the Food and Drug Administration's sentinel system. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2021 Jul 18;30(7):827–37. doi: 10.1002/pds.5240. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/33797815 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 138.Rosenblum HG, Gee J, Liu R, Marquez PL, Zhang B, Strid P, Abara WE, McNeil MM, Myers TR, Hause AM, Su JR, Markowitz LE, Shimabukuro TT, Shay DK. Safety of mRNA vaccines administered during the initial 6 months of the US COVID-19 vaccination programme: an observational study of reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and v-safe. Lancet Infect Dis. 2022 Jun;22(6):802–12. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(22)00054-8. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/35271805 .S1473-3099(22)00054-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 139.Williamson EJ, Walker AJ, Bhaskaran K, Bacon S, Bates C, Morton CE, Curtis HJ, Mehrkar A, Evans D, Inglesby P, Cockburn J, McDonald HI, MacKenna B, Tomlinson L, Douglas IJ, Rentsch CT, Mathur R, Wong AY, Grieve R, Harrison D, Forbes H, Schultze A, Croker R, Parry J, Hester F, Harper S, Perera R, Evans SJ, Smeeth L, Goldacre B. Factors associated with COVID-19-related death using OpenSAFELY. Nature. 2020 Aug;584(7821):430–6. doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2521-4. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/32640463 .10.1038/s41586-020-2521-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 140.Lim S, Yoon HI, Song KH, Kim ES, Kim HB. Face masks and containment of COVID-19: experience from South Korea. J Hosp Infect. 2020 Sep;106(1):206–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2020.06.017. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/32540463 .S0195-6701(20)30302-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 141.Holt M, MacGibbon J, Smith AK, Broady TR, Davis MD, Newman CE. Knowledge of Australia's My Health Record and factors associated with opting out: results from a national survey of the Australian general population and communities affected by HIV and sexually transmissible infections. PLOS Digit Health. 2023 Mar;2(3):e0000200. doi: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000200. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/36857326 .PDIG-D-22-00166 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 142.Karagiannidis C, Mostert C, Hentschker C, Voshaar T, Malzahn J, Schillinger G, Klauber J, Janssens U, Marx G, Weber-Carstens S, Kluge S, Pfeifer M, Grabenhenrich L, Welte T, Busse R. Case characteristics, resource use, and outcomes of 10 021 patients with COVID-19 admitted to 920 German hospitals: an observational study. Lancet Respir Med. 2020 Sep;8(9):853–62. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30316-7. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/32735842 .S2213-2600(20)30316-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 143.Fiske A, Schönweitz F, Eichinger J, Zimmermann B, Hangel N, Sierawska A, McLennan S, Buyx A. The COVID-19 vaccine: trust, doubt, and hope for a future beyond the pandemic in Germany. PLoS One. 2022;17(4):e0266659. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0266659. https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266659 .PONE-D-20-39676 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 144.Chowkwanyun M, Reed AL Jr. Racial health disparities and Covid-19 - caution and context. N Engl J Med. 2020 Jul 16;383(3):201–3. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp2012910. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 145.Pflugeisen BM, Mou J. Empiric evidence of ethnic disparities in coronavirus positivity in Washington State. Ethn Health. 2021 Jan 11;26(1):36–48. doi: 10.1080/13557858.2020.1863922. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 146.Cruz TM, Smith SA. Health equity beyond data: health care worker perceptions of race, ethnicity, and language data collection in electronic health records. Med Care. 2021 May 01;59(5):379–85. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000001507.00005650-202105000-00003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 147.Abdel Magid HS, Ferguson JM, Van Cleve R, Purnell AL, Osborne TF. Differences in COVID-19 risk by race and county-level social determinants of health among veterans. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Dec 13;18(24):13140. doi: 10.3390/ijerph182413140. https://www.mdpi.com/resolver?pii=ijerph182413140 .ijerph182413140 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 148.Herrera T, Fiori KP, Archer-Dyer H, Lounsbury DW, Wylie-Rosett J. Social determinants of health screening by preclinical medical students during the COVID-19 pandemic: service-based learning case study. JMIR Med Educ. 2022 Jan 17;8(1):e32818. doi: 10.2196/32818. https://mededu.jmir.org/2022/1/e32818/ v8i1e32818 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 149.Winkelman TN, Margolis KL, Waring S, Bodurtha PJ, Khazanchi R, Gildemeister S, Mink PJ, DeSilva M, Murray AM, Rai N, Sonier J, Neely C, Johnson SG, Chamberlain AM, Yu Y, McFarling LM, Dudley RA, Drawz PE. Minnesota electronic health record consortium COVID-19 project: informing pandemic response through statewide collaboration using observational data. Public Health Rep. 2022;137(2):263–71. doi: 10.1177/00333549211061317. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/35060411 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 150.Phuong J, Zampino E, Dobbins N, Espinoza J, Meeker D, Spratt H, Madlock-Brown C, Weiskopf NG, Wilcox A. Extracting patient-level social determinants of health into the OMOP common data model. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2021;2021:989–98. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/35308947 .3577690 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 151.Phuong J, Hong S, Palchuk MB, Espinoza J, Meeker D, Dorr DA, Lozinski G, Madlock-Brown C, Adams WG. Advancing interoperability of patient-level social determinants of health data to support COVID-19 research. AMIA Jt Summits Transl Sci Proc. 2022;2022:396–405. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/35854720 .2345 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 152.Kim EJ, Marrast L, Conigliaro J. COVID-19: magnifying the effect of health disparities. J Gen Intern Med. 2020 Aug;35(8):2441–2. doi: 10.1007/s11606-020-05881-4. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/32394141 .10.1007/s11606-020-05881-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 153.Zhou F, Yu T, Du R, Fan G, Liu Y, Liu Z, Xiang J, Wang Y, Song B, Gu X, Guan L, Wei Y, Li H, Wu X, Xu J, Tu S, Zhang Y, Chen H, Cao B. Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet. 2020 Mar 28;395(10229):1054–62. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30566-3. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/32171076 .S0140-6736(20)30566-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 154.Bambra C, Riordan R, Ford J, Matthews F. The COVID-19 pandemic and health inequalities. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2020 Nov;74(11):964–8. doi: 10.1136/jech-2020-214401. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/32535550 .jech-2020-214401 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 155.Liu CH, Pinder-Amaker S, Hahm HC, Chen JA. Priorities for addressing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on college student mental health. J Am Coll Health. 2022 Jul 13;70(5):1356–8. doi: 10.1080/07448481.2020.1803882. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/33048654 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 156.Jaspal R, Breakwell GM. Socio-economic inequalities in social network, loneliness and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2022 Feb 07;68(1):155–65. doi: 10.1177/0020764020976694. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0020764020976694?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub0pubmed . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 157.Thorell LB, Skoglund C, de la Peña AG, Baeyens D, Fuermaier AB, Groom MJ, Mammarella IC, van der Oord S, van den Hoofdakker BJ, Luman M, de Miranda DM, Siu AF, Steinmayr R, Idrees I, Soares LS, Sörlin M, Luque JL, Moscardino UM, Roch M, Crisci G, Christiansen H. Parental experiences of homeschooling during the COVID-19 pandemic: differences between seven European countries and between children with and without mental health conditions. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2022 Apr 07;31(4):649–61. doi: 10.1007/s00787-020-01706-1. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/33415470 .10.1007/s00787-020-01706-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 158.Hawes MT, Szenczy AK, Klein DN, Hajcak G, Nelson BD. Increases in depression and anxiety symptoms in adolescents and young adults during the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychol Med. 2022 Oct;52(14):3222–30. doi: 10.1017/S0033291720005358. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/33436120 .S0033291720005358 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 159.Hewitt KC, Marra DE, Block C, Cysique LA, Drane DL, Haddad MM, Łojek E, McDonald CR, Reyes A, Eversole K, Bowers D. Central nervous system manifestations of COVID-19: a critical review and proposed research agenda. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2021 Apr 16;28(3):311–25. doi: 10.1017/s1355617721000345. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 160.Hugon J, Msika EF, Queneau M, Farid K, Paquet C. Long COVID: cognitive complaints (brain fog) and dysfunction of the cingulate cortex. J Neurol. 2022 Jan;269(1):44–6. doi: 10.1007/s00415-021-10655-x. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/34143277 .10.1007/s00415-021-10655-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 161.Damiano RF, Guedes BF, de Rocca CC, de Pádua Serafim A, Castro LH, Munhoz CD, Nitrini R, Filho GB, Miguel EC, Lucchetti G, Forlenza O. Cognitive decline following acute viral infections: literature review and projections for post-COVID-19. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2022 Feb 25;272(1):139–54. doi: 10.1007/s00406-021-01286-4. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/34173049 .10.1007/s00406-021-01286-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 162.Caraballo PJ, Sutton JA, Giri J, Wright JA, Nicholson WT, Kullo IJ, Parkulo MA, Bielinski SJ, Moyer AM. Integrating pharmacogenomics into the electronic health record by implementing genomic indicators. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020 Jan 01;27(1):154–8. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocz177. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/31591640 .5582701 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 163.Glynn P, Greenland P. Contributions of the UK biobank high impact papers in the era of precision medicine. Eur J Epidemiol. 2020 Jan 28;35(1):5–10. doi: 10.1007/s10654-020-00606-7.10.1007/s10654-020-00606-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 164.Cortes A, Dendrou CA, Motyer A, Jostins L, Vukcevic D, Dilthey A, Donnelly P, Leslie S, Fugger L, McVean G. Bayesian analysis of genetic association across tree-structured routine healthcare data in the UK Biobank. Nat Genet. 2017 Sep 31;49(9):1311–8. doi: 10.1038/ng.3926. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/28759005 .ng.3926 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 165.Gill D, Benyamin B, Moore LS, Monori G, Zhou A, Koskeridis F, Evangelou E, Laffan M, Walker AP, Tsilidis KK, Dehghan A, Elliott P, Hyppönen E, Tzoulaki I. Associations of genetically determined iron status across the phenome: a mendelian randomization study. PLoS Med. 2019 Jun 20;16(6):e1002833. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002833. https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002833 .PMEDICINE-D-19-00020 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 166.Biddinger KJ, Emdin CA, Haas ME, Wang M, Hindy G, Ellinor PT, Kathiresan S, Khera AV, Aragam KG. Association of habitual alcohol intake with risk of cardiovascular disease. JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Mar 01;5(3):e223849. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.3849. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/35333364 .2790520 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 167.Harrison S, Davies NM, Howe LD, Hughes A. Testosterone and socioeconomic position: Mendelian randomization in 306,248 men and women in UK Biobank. Sci Adv. 2021 Jul;7(31):eabf8257. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abf8257. https:///www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abf8257?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub0pubmed .7/31/eabf8257 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 168.Patchen BK, Clark AG, Gaddis N, Hancock DB, Cassano PA. Genetically predicted serum vitamin D and COVID-19: a Mendelian randomisation study. BMJ Nutr Prev Health. 2021;4(1):213–25. doi: 10.1136/bmjnph-2021-000255. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/34308129 .bmjnph-2021-000255 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 169.Guertin J, Kaiser Y, Manikpurage H, Perrot N, Bourgeois R, Couture C, Wareham NJ, Bossé Y, Pibarot P, Stroes ES, Mathieu P, Clavel MA, Thériault S, Boekholdt SM, Arsenault BJ. Sex-specific associations of genetically predicted circulating Lp(a) (Lipoprotein(a)) and hepatic LPA gene expression levels with cardiovascular outcomes: Mendelian randomization and observational analyses. Circ Genom Precis Med. 2021 Aug;14(4):e003271. doi: 10.1161/CIRCGEN.120.003271. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 170.Millard LA, Fernández-Sanlés A, Carter AR, Hughes RA, Tilling K, Morris TP, Major-Smith D, Griffith GJ, Clayton GL, Kawabata E, Davey Smith G, Lawlor DA, Borges MC. Exploring the impact of selection bias in observational studies of COVID-19: a simulation study. Int J Epidemiol. 2023 Feb 08;52(1):44–57. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyac221. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/36474414 .6874795 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 171.Sankar PL, Parker LS. The Precision Medicine Initiative's All of Us Research Program: an agenda for research on its ethical, legal, and social issues. Genet Med. 2017 Jul;19(7):743–50. doi: 10.1038/gim.2016.183. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1098-3600(21)02228-0 .S1098-3600(21)02228-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 172.Erlangsen A, Fedyszyn I. Danish nationwide registers for public health and health-related research. Scand J Public Health. 2015 Jun 10;43(4):333–9. doi: 10.1177/1403494815575193.1403494815575193 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 173.Nagai A, Hirata M, Kamatani Y, Muto K, Matsuda K, Kiyohara Y, Ninomiya T, Tamakoshi A, Yamagata Z, Mushiroda T, Murakami Y, Yuji K, Furukawa Y, Zembutsu H, Tanaka T, Ohnishi Y, Nakamura Y, BioBank Japan Cooperative Hospital Group. Kubo M. Overview of the BioBank Japan Project: study design and profile. J Epidemiol. 2017 Mar;27(3S):S2–8. doi: 10.1016/j.je.2016.12.005. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0917-5040(16)30067-3 .S0917-5040(16)30067-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 174.Chen Z, Chen J, Collins R, Guo Y, Peto R, Wu F, Li L. China Kadoorie Biobank of 0.5 million people: survey methods, baseline characteristics and long-term follow-up. Int J Epidemiol. 2011 Dec;40(6):1652–66. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyr120. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/22158673 .dyr120 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 175.Koebnick C, Langer-Gould AM, Gould MK, Chao CR, Iyer RL, Smith N, Chen W, Jacobsen SJ. Sociodemographic characteristics of members of a large, integrated health care system: comparison with US Census Bureau data. Perm J. 2012;16(3):37–41. doi: 10.7812/TPP/12-031. https://www.thepermanentejournal.org/doi/10.7812/TPP/12-031?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub0pubmed . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 176.Gulcher J, Stefansson K. An Icelandic saga on a centralized healthcare database and democratic decision making. Nat Biotechnol. 1999 Jul;17(7):620. doi: 10.1038/10796. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 177.Sakaue S, Kanai M, Karjalainen J, Akiyama M, Kurki M, Matoba N, Takahashi A, Hirata M, Kubo M, Matsuda K, Murakami Y, FinnGen. Daly MJ, Kamatani Y, Okada Y. Trans-biobank analysis with 676,000 individuals elucidates the association of polygenic risk scores of complex traits with human lifespan. Nat Med. 2020 Apr 23;26(4):542–8. doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-0785-8.10.1038/s41591-020-0785-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 178.Pulley J, Clayton E, Bernard GR, Roden DM, Masys DR. Principles of human subjects protections applied in an opt-out, de-identified biobank. Clin Transl Sci. 2010 Feb 10;3(1):42–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-8062.2010.00175.x. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/20443953 .CTS175 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 179.Zawistowski M, Fritsche LG, Pandit A, Vanderwerff B, Patil S, Schmidt EM, VandeHaar P, Willer CJ, Brummett CM, Kheterpal S, Zhou X, Boehnke M, Abecasis GR, Zöllner S. The Michigan Genomics Initiative: a biobank linking genotypes and electronic clinical records in Michigan Medicine patients. Cell Genom. 2023 Feb 08;3(2):100257. doi: 10.1016/j.xgen.2023.100257. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2666-979X(23)00013-7 .S2666-979X(23)00013-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 180.Levin MA, Joseph TT, Jeff JM, Nadukuru R, Ellis SB, Bottinger EP, Kenny EE. iGAS: a framework for using electronic intraoperative medical records for genomic discovery. J Biomed Inform. 2017 Mar;67:80–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2017.02.005. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1532-0464(17)30026-6 .S1532-0464(17)30026-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 181.Leitsalu L, Haller T, Esko T, Tammesoo ML, Alavere H, Snieder H, Perola M, Ng PC, Mägi R, Milani L, Fischer K, Metspalu A. Cohort profile: Estonian Biobank of the Estonian Genome Center, University of Tartu. Int J Epidemiol. 2015 Aug 11;44(4):1137–47. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyt268.dyt268 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 182.Lekhal R, Zachrisson HD, Wang MV, Schjølberg S, von Soest T. Does universally accessible child care protect children from late talking? Results from a Norwegian population-based prospective study. Early Child Dev Care. 2011 Sep;181(8):1007–19. doi: 10.1080/03004430.2010.508558. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 183.Gottesman O, Kuivaniemi H, Tromp G, Faucett WA, Li R, Manolio TA, Sanderson SC, Kannry J, Zinberg R, Basford MA, Brilliant M, Carey DJ, Chisholm RL, Chute CG, Connolly JJ, Crosslin D, Denny JC, Gallego CJ, Haines JL, Hakonarson H, Harley J, Jarvik GP, Kohane I, Kullo IJ, Larson EB, McCarty C, Ritchie MD, Roden DM, Smith ME, Böttinger EP, Williams MS. The Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network: past, present, and future. Genet Med. 2013 Oct;15(10):761–71. doi: 10.1038/gim.2013.72. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/23743551 .gim201372 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 184.Bernardini M, Romeo L, Misericordia P, Frontoni E. Discovering the type 2 diabetes in electronic health records using the sparse balanced support vector machine. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2020 Jan;24(1):235–46. doi: 10.1109/JBHI.2019.2899218. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 185.Juhn Y, Liu H. Artificial intelligence approaches using natural language processing to advance EHR-based clinical research. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020 Feb;145(2):463–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2019.12.897. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/31883846 .S0091-6749(19)32604-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 186.Yu K, Xie X. Predicting hospital readmission: a joint ensemble-learning model. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2020 Feb;24(2):447–56. doi: 10.1109/JBHI.2019.2938995. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 187.Wang Y, Wu T, Wang Y, Wang G. Enhancing model interpretability and accuracy for disease progression prediction via phenotype-based patient similarity learning. Pac Symp Biocomput. 2020;25:511–22. doi: 10.1142/9789811215636_0045.9789811215636_0045 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 188.Tang S, Chappell GT, Mazzoli A, Tewari M, Choi SW, Wiens J. Predicting acute graft-versus-host disease using machine learning and longitudinal vital sign data from electronic health records. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2020 Nov;4:128–35. doi: 10.1200/cci.19.00105. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 189.Chae D. Data science and machine learning in anesthesiology. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2020 Aug;73(4):285–95. doi: 10.4097/kja.20124. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/32209960 .kja.20124 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 190.Li R, Yin C, Yang S, Qian B, Zhang P. Marrying medical domain knowledge with deep learning on electronic health records: a deep visual analytics approach. J Med Internet Res. 2020 Sep 28;22(9):e20645. doi: 10.2196/20645. https://www.jmir.org/2020/9/e20645/ v22i9e20645 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 191.Zhang J, Olatosi B, Yang X, Weissman S, Li Z, Hu J, Li X. Studying patterns and predictors of HIV viral suppression using A Big Data approach: a research protocol. BMC Infect Dis. 2022 Feb 04;22(1):122. doi: 10.1186/s12879-022-07047-5. https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12879-022-07047-5 .10.1186/s12879-022-07047-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 192.Schinkel M, Boerman AW, Bennis FC, Minderhoud TC, Lie M, Peters-Sengers H, Holleman F, Schade RP, de Jonge R, Wiersinga WJ, Nanayakkara PW. Diagnostic stewardship for blood cultures in the emergency department: a multicenter validation and prospective evaluation of a machine learning prediction tool. EBioMedicine. 2022 Aug;82:104176. doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2022.104176. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2352-3964(22)00357-7 .S2352-3964(22)00357-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 193.Nishimwe A, Ruranga C, Musanabaganwa C, Mugeni R, Semakula M, Nzabanita J, Kabano I, Uwimana A, Utumatwishima JN, Kabakambira JD, Uwineza A, Halvorsen L, Descamps F, Houghtaling J, Burke B, Bahati O, Bizimana C, Jansen S, Twizere C, Nkurikiyeyezu K, Birungi F, Nsanzimana S, Twagirumukiza M. Leveraging artificial intelligence and data science techniques in harmonizing, sharing, accessing and analyzing SARS-COV-2/COVID-19 data in Rwanda (LAISDAR Project): study design and rationale. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2022 Aug 12;22(1):214. doi: 10.1186/s12911-022-01965-9. https://bmcmedinformdecismak.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12911-022-01965-9 .10.1186/s12911-022-01965-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 194.Dam TA, Fleuren LM, Roggeveen LF, Otten M, Biesheuvel L, Jagesar AR, Lalisang RC, Kullberg RF, Hendriks T, Girbes AR, Hoogendoorn M, Thoral PJ, Elbers PW. Augmented intelligence facilitates concept mapping across different electronic health records. Int J Med Inform. 2023 Nov;179:105233. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2023.105233. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1386-5056(23)00251-4 .S1386-5056(23)00251-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 195.Esteva A, Robicquet A, Ramsundar B, Kuleshov V, DePristo M, Chou K, Cui C, Corrado G, Thrun S, Dean J. A guide to deep learning in healthcare. Nat Med. 2019 Jan;25(1):24–9. doi: 10.1038/s41591-018-0316-z.10.1038/s41591-018-0316-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 196.Ayala Solares JR, Diletta Raimondi FE, Zhu Y, Rahimian F, Canoy D, Tran J, Pinho Gomes AC, Payberah AH, Zottoli M, Nazarzadeh M, Conrad N, Rahimi K, Salimi-Khorshidi G. Deep learning for electronic health records: a comparative review of multiple deep neural architectures. J Biomed Inform. 2020 Jan;101:103337. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103337. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1532-0464(19)30256-4 .S1532-0464(19)30256-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 197.Fernandes M, Vieira SM, Leite F, Palos C, Finkelstein S, Sousa JM. Clinical decision support systems for triage in the emergency department using intelligent systems: a review. Artif Intell Med. 2020 Jan;102:101762. doi: 10.1016/j.artmed.2019.101762.S0933-3657(19)30126-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 198.Uciteli A, Beger C, Kirsten T, Meineke FA, Herre H. Ontological representation, classification and data-driven computing of phenotypes. J Biomed Semantics. 2020 Dec 21;11(1):15. doi: 10.1186/s13326-020-00230-0. https://jbiomedsem.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13326-020-00230-0 .10.1186/s13326-020-00230-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 199.Suryanarayanan P, Epstein EA, Malvankar A, Lewis BL, DeGenaro L, Liang JJ, Tsou CH, Pathak D. Timely and efficient AI insights on EHR: system design. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2020;2020:1180–9. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/33936494 .154_3417042 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 200.Scalia P, Ahmad F, Schubbe D, Forcino R, Durand MA, Barr PJ, Elwyn G. Integrating option grid patient decision aids in the epic electronic health record: case study at 5 health systems. J Med Internet Res. 2021 May 03;23(5):e22766. doi: 10.2196/22766. https://www.jmir.org/2021/5/e22766/ v23i5e22766 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 201.Soguero-Ruiz C, Fei WM, Jenssen R, Augestad KM, Álvarez JL, Jiménez IM, Lindsetmo RO, Skrøvseth SO. Data-driven temporal prediction of surgical site infection. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2015;2015:1164–73. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/26958256 . [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 202.Bronsert M, Singh AB, Henderson WG, Hammermeister K, Meguid RA, Colborn KL. Identification of postoperative complications using electronic health record data and machine learning. Am J Surg. 2020 Jul;220(1):114–9. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2019.10.009. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/31635792 .S0002-9610(19)31150-X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 203.Hernandez-Boussard T, Blayney DW, Brooks JD. Leveraging digital data to inform and improve quality cancer care. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2020 Apr;29(4):816–22. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-19-0873. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/32066619 .1055-9965.EPI-19-0873 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 204.Zhuang Y, Dyas A, Meguid RA, Henderson WG, Bronsert M, Madsen H, Colborn KL. Preoperative prediction of postoperative infections using machine learning and electronic health record data. Ann Surg. 2024 Apr 01;279(4):720–6. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000006106.00000658-990000000-00654 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 205.Savage T, Wang J, Shieh L. A large language model screening tool to target patients for best practice alerts: development and validation. JMIR Med Inform. 2023 Nov 27;11:e49886. doi: 10.2196/49886. https://medinform.jmir.org/2023//e49886/ v11i1e49886 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 206.Zhu V, Lenert L, Bunnell B, Obeid J, Jefferson M, Halbert CH. Automatically identifying financial stress information from clinical notes for patients with prostate cancer. Cancer Res Rep. 2020;1(1):102. doi: 10.61545/crr-1-102. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/38317775 .102 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 207.Tedeschi SK, Cai T, He Z, Ahuja Y, Hong C, Yates KA, Dahal K, Xu C, Lyu H, Yoshida K, Solomon DH, Cai T, Liao KP. Classifying pseudogout using machine learning approaches with electronic health record data. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2021 Mar 25;73(3):442–8. doi: 10.1002/acr.24132. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/31910317 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 208.Hu B, Bajracharya A, Yu H. Generating medical assessments using a neural network model: algorithm development and validation. JMIR Med Inform. 2020 Jan 15;8(1):e14971. doi: 10.2196/14971. https://medinform.jmir.org/2020/1/e14971/ v8i1e14971 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 209.Colling C, Khondoker M, Patel R, Fok M, Harland R, Broadbent M, McCrone P, Stewart R. Predicting high-cost care in a mental health setting. BJPsych Open. 2020 Jan 17;6(1):e10. doi: 10.1192/bjo.2019.96. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/31950891 .S2056472419000966 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 210.Yang X, Chen A, PourNejatian N, Shin HC, Smith KE, Parisien C, Compas C, Martin C, Costa AB, Flores MG, Zhang Y, Magoc T, Harle CA, Lipori G, Mitchell DA, Hogan WR, Shenkman EA, Bian J, Wu Y. A large language model for electronic health records. NPJ Digit Med. 2022 Dec 26;5(1):194. doi: 10.1038/s41746-022-00742-2. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-022-00742-2 .10.1038/s41746-022-00742-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 211.Chen A, Yu Z, Yang X, Guo Y, Bian J, Wu Y. Contextualized medication information extraction using transformer-based deep learning architectures. J Biomed Inform. 2023 Jun;142:104370. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2023.104370. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1532-0464(23)00091-6 .S1532-0464(23)00091-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 212.Peng C, Yang X, Yu Z, Bian J, Hogan WR, Wu Y. Clinical concept and relation extraction using prompt-based machine reading comprehension. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2023 Aug 18;30(9):1486–93. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocad107. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/37316988 .7198189 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 213.Kim MK, Rouphael C, McMichael J, Welch N, Dasarathy S. Challenges in and opportunities for electronic health record-based data analysis and interpretation. Gut Liver. 2024 Mar 15;18(2):201–8. doi: 10.5009/gnl230272. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/37905424 .gnl230272 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 214.Holmes JH, Beinlich J, Boland MR, Bowles KH, Chen Y, Cook TS, Demiris G, Draugelis M, Fluharty L, Gabriel PE, Grundmeier R, Hanson CW, Herman DS, Himes BE, Hubbard RA, Kahn CE, Kim D, Koppel R, Long Q, Mirkovic N, Morris JS, Mowery DL, Ritchie MD, Urbanowicz R, Moore JH. Why is the electronic health record so challenging for research and clinical care? Methods Inf Med. 2021 May;60(1-02):32–48. doi: 10.1055/s-0041-1731784. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/34282602 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 215.Kotecha D, Asselbergs FW, Achenbach S, Anker SD, Atar D, Baigent C, Banerjee A, Beger B, Brobert G, Casadei B, Ceccarelli C, Cowie MR, Crea F, Cronin M, Denaxas S, Derix A, Fitzsimons D, Fredriksson M, Gale CP, Gkoutos GV, Goettsch W, Hemingway H, Ingvar M, Jonas A, Kazmierski R, Løgstrup S, Lumbers RT, Lüscher TF, McGreavy P, Piña IL, Roessig L, Steinbeisser C, Sundgren M, Tyl B, Thiel GV, Bochove KV, Vardas PE, Villanueva T, Vrana M, Weber W, Weidinger F, Windecker S, Wood A, Grobbee DE. CODE-EHR best-practice framework for the use of structured electronic health-care records in clinical research. Lancet Digit Health. 2022 Oct;4(10):e757–64. doi: 10.1016/s2589-7500(22)00151-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 216.Tong L, Shi W, Isgut M, Zhong Y, Lais P, Gloster L, Sun J, Swain A, Giuste F, Wang MD, Wang MD. Integrating multi-omics data with EHR for precision medicine using advanced artificial intelligence. IEEE Rev Biomed Eng. 2024;17:80–97. doi: 10.1109/rbme.2023.3324264. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 217.Lau-Min KS, Asher SB, Chen J, Domchek SM, Feldman M, Joffe S, Landgraf J, Speare V, Varughese LA, Tuteja S, VanZandbergen C, Ritchie MD, Nathanson KL. Real-world integration of genomic data into the electronic health record: the PennChart Genomics Initiative. Genet Med. 2021 Apr;23(4):603–5. doi: 10.1038/s41436-020-01056-y. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1098-3600(21)02465-5 .S1098-3600(21)02465-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 218.Lau-Min KS, McKenna D, Asher SB, Bardakjian T, Wollack C, Bleznuck J, Biros D, Anantharajah A, Clark DF, Condit C, Ebrahimzadeh JE, Long JM, Powers J, Raper A, Schoenbaum A, Feldman M, Steinfeld L, Tuteja S, VanZandbergen C, Domchek SM, Ritchie MD, Landgraf J, Chen J, Nathanson KL. Impact of integrating genomic data into the electronic health record on genetics care delivery. Genet Med. 2022 Nov;24(11):2338–50. doi: 10.1016/j.gim.2022.08.009. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1098-3600(22)00900-5 .S1098-3600(22)00900-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 219.Chung WK, Berg JS, Botkin JR, Brenner SE, Brosco JP, Brothers KB, Currier RJ, Gaviglio A, Kowtoniuk WE, Olson C, Lloyd-Puryear M, Saarinen A, Sahin M, Shen Y, Sherr EH, Watson MS, Hu Z. Newborn screening for neurodevelopmental diseases: are we there yet? Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet. 2022 Jun;190(2):222–30. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.c.31988. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/35838066 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 220.Sosinsky A, Ambrose J, Cross W, Turnbull C, Henderson S, Jones L, Hamblin A, Arumugam P, Chan G, Chubb D, Noyvert B, Mitchell J, Walker S, Bowman K, Pasko D, Buongermino Pereira M, Volkova N, Rueda-Martin A, Perez-Gil D, Lopez J, Pullinger J, Siddiq A, Zainy T, Choudhury T, Yavorska O, Fowler T, Bentley D, Kingsley C, Hing S, Deans Z, Rendon A, Hill S, Caulfield M, Murugaesu N. Insights for precision oncology from the integration of genomic and clinical data of 13,880 tumors from the 100,000 Genomes Cancer Programme. Nat Med. 2024 Jan 11;30(1):279–89. doi: 10.1038/s41591-023-02682-0. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/38200255 .10.1038/s41591-023-02682-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 221.Zeng Z, Deng Y, Li X, Naumann T, Luo Y. Natural language processing for EHR-based computational phenotyping. IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform. 2019;16(1):139–53. doi: 10.1109/TCBB.2018.2849968. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/29994486 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 222.Sheikhalishahi S, Miotto R, Dudley JT, Lavelli A, Rinaldi F, Osmani V. Natural language processing of clinical notes on chronic diseases: systematic review. JMIR Med Inform. 2019 Apr 27;7(2):e12239. doi: 10.2196/12239. https://medinform.jmir.org/2019/2/e12239/ v7i2e12239 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 223.Pevnick JM, Elad Y, Masson LM, Riggs RV, Duncan RG. Patient-initiated data: our experience with enabling patients to initiate incorporation of heart rate data into the electronic health record. Appl Clin Inform. 2020 Aug 14;11(4):671–9. doi: 10.1055/s-0040-1716538. http://www.thieme-connect.com/DOI/DOI?10.1055/s-0040-1716538 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 224.Shaw R, Stroo M, Fiander C, McMillan K. Selecting mobile health technologies for electronic health record integration: case study. J Med Internet Res. 2020 Oct 28;22(10):e23314. doi: 10.2196/23314. https://www.jmir.org/2020/10/e23314/ v22i10e23314 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 225.Shaw RJ, Montgomery K, Fiander C, Bullock K, Craig R, Pennington G, Crowley MJ. Mobile monitoring-enabled telehealth for patients with complex chronic illnesses. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2024 Jan 25;310:194–8. doi: 10.3233/SHTI230954.SHTI230954 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 226.Richter JG, Chehab G, Stachwitz P, Hagen J, Larsen D, Knitza J, Schneider M, Voormann A, Specker C. One year of digital health applications (DiGA) in Germany - rheumatologists' perspectives. Front Med (Lausanne) 2022;9:1000668. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2022.1000668. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/36388899 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 227.Cantor MN, Thorpe L. Integrating data on social determinants of health into electronic health records. Health Aff (Millwood) 2018 Apr;37(4):585–90. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2017.1252. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/29608369 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 228.Honerlaw J, Ho YL, Fontin F, Murray M, Galloway A, Heise D, Connatser K, Davies L, Gosian J, Maripuri M, Russo J, Sangar R, Tanukonda V, Zielinski E, Dubreuil M, Zimolzak AJ, Panickan VA, Cheng SC, Whitbourne SB, Gagnon DR, Cai T, Liao KP, Ramoni RB, Gaziano JM, Muralidhar S, Cho K. Centralized Interactive Phenomics Resource: an integrated online phenomics knowledgebase for health data users. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2024 Apr 19;31(5):1126–34. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocae042. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/38481028 .7628159 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 229.Honerlaw J, Ho YL, Fontin F, Gosian J, Maripuri M, Murray M, Sangar R, Galloway A, Zimolzak AJ, Whitbourne SB, Casas JP, Ramoni RB, Gagnon DR, Cai T, Liao KP, Gaziano JM, Muralidhar S, Cho K. Framework of the Centralized Interactive Phenomics Resource (CIPHER) standard for electronic health data-based phenomics knowledgebase. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2023 Apr 19;30(5):958–64. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocad030. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/36882092 .7071810 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 230.Fodor J. HIPAA and the EHR: making technical safeguard changes. J AHIMA. 2004 Jan;75(1):54–5; quiz 61. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 231.Wang T, Pizziferri L, Volk LA, Mikels DA, Grant KG, Wald JS, Bates DW. Implementing patient access to electronic health records under HIPAA: lessons learned. Perspect Health Inf Manag. 2004 Dec 15;1:11. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/18066391 . [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 232.Nijor S, Rallis G, Lad N, Gokcen E. Patient safety issues from information overload in electronic medical records. J Patient Saf. 2022 Sep 01;18(6):e999–1003. doi: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000001002. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/35985047 .01209203-202209000-00034 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 233.Cornock M. General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and implications for research. Maturitas. 2018 May;111:A1–2. doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2018.01.017.S0378-5122(18)30036-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 234.Kavianpour S, Sutherland J, Mansouri-Benssassi E, Coull N, Jefferson E. Next-generation capabilities in trusted research environments: interview study. J Med Internet Res. 2022 Sep 20;24(9):e33720. doi: 10.2196/33720. https://www.jmir.org/2022/9/e33720/ v24i9e33720 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 235.Kruse CS, Smith B, Vanderlinden H, Nealand A. Security techniques for the electronic health records. J Med Syst. 2017 Aug;41(8):127. doi: 10.1007/s10916-017-0778-4. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/28733949 .10.1007/s10916-017-0778-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 236.Chassang G. The impact of the EU general data protection regulation on scientific research. Ecancermedicalscience. 2017;11:709. doi: 10.3332/ecancer.2017.709. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/28144283 .can-11-709 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 237.Rumbold JM, Pierscionek B. The effect of the general data protection regulation on medical research. J Med Internet Res. 2017 Feb 24;19(2):e47. doi: 10.2196/jmir.7108. https://www.jmir.org/2017/2/e47/ v19i2e47 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 238.Fleurence RL, Curtis LH, Califf RM, Platt R, Selby JV, Brown JS. Launching PCORnet, a national patient-centered clinical research network. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014;21(4):578–82. doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2014-002747. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/24821743 .amiajnl-2014-002747 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 239.Qualls LG, Phillips TA, Hammill BG, Topping J, Louzao DM, Brown JS, Curtis LH, Marsolo K. Evaluating foundational data quality in the national patient-centered clinical research network (PCORnet®) EGEMS (Wash DC) 2018 Apr 13;6(1):3. doi: 10.5334/egems.199. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/29881761 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 240.Tison GH, Chamberlain AM, Pletcher MJ, Dunlay SM, Weston SA, Killian JM, Olgin JE, Roger VL. Identifying heart failure using EMR-based algorithms. Int J Med Inform. 2018 Dec;120:1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2018.09.016. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/30409334 .S1386-5056(18)30680-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 241.Klann JG, Joss MA, Embree K, Murphy SN. Data model harmonization for the All of Us Research Program: transforming i2b2 data into the OMOP common data model. PLoS One. 2019;14(2):e0212463. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0212463. https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212463 .PONE-D-18-34751 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 242.Overhage JM, Ryan PB, Reich CG, Hartzema AG, Stang PE. Validation of a common data model for active safety surveillance research. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012;19(1):54–60. doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000376. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/22037893 .amiajnl-2011-000376 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 243.Ryan PB, Madigan D, Stang PE, Overhage JM, Racoosin JA, Hartzema AG. Empirical assessment of methods for risk identification in healthcare data: results from the experiments of the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership. Stat Med. 2012 Dec 30;31(30):4401–15. doi: 10.1002/sim.5620. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 244.Hossain E, Rana R, Higgins N, Soar J, Datta Barua P, Pisani AR, Turner K. Natural language processing in electronic health records in relation to healthcare decision-making: a systematic review. Comput Biol Med. 2023 Mar;155:106649. doi: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2023.106649.S0010-4825(23)00114-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 245.Min L, Tian Q, Lu X, Duan H. Modeling EHR with the openEHR approach: an exploratory study in China. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2018 Aug 29;18(1):75. doi: 10.1186/s12911-018-0650-6. https://bmcmedinformdecismak.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12911-018-0650-6 .10.1186/s12911-018-0650-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 246.Veinot TC, Ancker JS, Bakken S. Health informatics and health equity: improving our reach and impact. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2019 Aug 01;26(8-9):689–95. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocz132. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/31411692 .5549815 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 247.Zhang X, Hailu B, Tabor DC, Gold R, Sayre MH, Sim I, Jean-Francois B, Casnoff CA, Cullen T, Thomas VA Jr, Artiles L, Williams K, Le PT, Aklin CF, James R. Role of health information technology in addressing health disparities: patient, clinician, and system perspectives. Med Care. 2019 Jun;57 Suppl 6 Suppl 2(Suppl 6 2):S115–20. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000001092. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/31095049 .00005650-201906001-00006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist.