This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Wu, L. Articles by Ashton, C. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Wu, L. Articles by Ashton, C. M. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Chart Review

A Need for Reappraisal

Carol M. Ashton

Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, Texas

Imperfections of chart review as a data collection method are detailed, with particular emphasis on the issue of reliability. The authors identify 125 journal articles published between 1991 and 1992 in which the authors'conclusions were based principally on chart reviewfindings and were either clinical or health care epidemiology studies, or quality assessment studies. Eight percent of epidemiology studies and 56% of quality assessment studies presented data on interrater reliability. Forty-fourpercent of epidemiology studies and 20% of quality assessment studies did not describe the number of chart reviewers involved. Forty-three percent of epidemiology studies and 28% of quality assessment studies used supplementary data sources. The authors conclude that the validity and utility of studies based on chart review would be enhanced by attention to interrater relability and the use of supplementary data sources.

Evaluation & the Health Professions, Vol. 20, No. 2, 146-163 (1997)
DOI: 10.1177/016327879702000203


CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. E. Guerra, M. Sherman, and K. Armstrong Diffusion of Breast Cancer Risk Assessment in Primary Care J Am Board Fam Med, May 1, 2009; 22(3): 272 - 279. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. M. Ferrante, P. Ohman-Strickland, K. A. Hahn, S. V. Hudson, E. K. Shaw, J. C. Crosson, and B. F. Crabtree Self-report versus Medical Records for Assessing Cancer-Preventive Services Delivery Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., November 1, 2008; 17(11): 2987 - 2994. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. W. D'Avolio and A. A.T. Bui The Clinical Outcomes Assessment Toolkit: A Framework to Support Automated Clinical Records-based Outcomes Assessment and Performance Measurement Research J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc., May 1, 2008; 15(3): 333 - 340. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S M Campbell, M Hann, J Hacker, A Durie, A Thapar, and M O Roland Quality assessment for three common conditions in primary care: validity and reliability of review criteria developed by expert panels for angina, asthma and type 2 diabetes Qual. Saf. Health Care, June 1, 2002; 11(2): 125 - 130. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. W. Peabody, J. Luck, P. Glassman, T. R. Dresselhaus, and M. Lee Comparison of Vignettes, Standardized Patients, and Chart Abstraction: A Prospective Validation Study of 3 Methods for Measuring Quality JAMA, April 5, 2000; 283(13): 1715 - 1722. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]