Evaluation & the Health Professions

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click Here for More Information

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wu, L.
Right arrow Articles by Ashton, C. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wu, L.
Right arrow Articles by Ashton, C. M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Evaluation & the Health Professions, Vol. 20, No. 2, 146-163 (1997)
DOI: 10.1177/016327879702000203

Chart Review

A Need for Reappraisal

Louis Wu

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.


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


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc.Home page
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]

Home page
 Qual Saf Health CareHome page
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]

Home page
 JAMAHome page
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]