Comparing Medical Record Abstraction (MRA) Error Rates in an Observational Study to Pooled Rates Identified in the Data Quality Literature

Abstract

Abstract Background: Medical record abstraction (MRA) is a commonly used method for data collection in clinical research, but is prone to error, and the influence of quality control (QC) measures is seldom and inconsistently assessed during the course of a study. We employed a novel, standardized MRA-QC framework as part of an ongoing observational study in an effort to control MRA error rates. In order to assess the effectiveness of our framework, we compared our error rates against traditional MRA studies that had not reported using formalized MRA-QC methods. Thus, the objective of this study was to compare the MRA error rates derived from the literature with the error rates found in a study using MRA as the sole method of data collection that employed an MRA-QC framework. Methods: Using a moderator meta-analysis employed with Q-test, the MRA error rates from the meta-analysis of the literature were compared with the error rate from a recent study that implemented formalized MRA training and continuous QC processes. Results: The MRA process for data acquisition in clinical research was associated with both high and highly variable error rates (70 – 2,784 errors per 10,000 fields). Error rates for the study using our MRA-QC framework were between 1.04% (optimistic, all-field rate) and 2.57% (conservative, populated-field rate) (or 104 – 257 errors per 10,000 fields), 4.00 – 5.53 percentage points less than the observed rate from the literature (p<0.0001). Conclusions: Review of the literature indicated that the accuracy associated with MRA varied widely across studies. However, our results demonstrate that, with appropriate training and continuous QC, MRA error rates can be significantly controlled during the course of a clinical research study.