ArticleClinical trials (London, England)2010
Quality control of phenotypic forms data in the Type 1 Diabetes Genetics Consortium.
Article in Clinical trials (London, England), 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of data quality in an international multi-centre randomised trial of coronary artery surgery.Trials · 2011Trial
- Design and Measurement of Nonislet-Specific Autoantibodies for the Type 1 Diabetes Genetics Consortium Autoantibody Workshop.Diabetes care · 2015Article
- Standards of medical care in diabetes--2015: summary of revisions.Diabetes care · 2015 · on this mapArticle
- Predictors of associated autoimmune diseases in families with type 1 diabetes: results from the Type 1 Diabetes Genetics Consortium.Diabetes/metabolism research and reviews · 2011Article
- Designing and implementing sample and data collection for an international genetics study: the Type 1 Diabetes Genetics Consortium (T1DGC).Clinical trials (London, England) · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhen collecting phenotypic data in clinics across the globe, the Type 1 Diabetes Genetics Consortium (T1DGC) used several techniques that ensured consistency, completeness, and accuracy of the data. PURPOSE: The aim of this article is to describe the procedures used for collection, entry, processing, and management of the phenotypic data in this international study.
methodsThe T1DGC ensured the collection of high quality data using the following procedures throughout the entire study period. The T1DGC used centralized and localized training, required a pilot study, certified all data entry personnel, created standardized data collection forms, reviewed a sample of form sets quarterly throughout the duration of the study, and used a data entry system that provided immediate feedback to those entering the data.
resultsDue to the intensive procedures in developing the forms, the study was able to uphold consistency among all clinics and minimal changes were required after implementation of the forms. The train-the-trainer model was efficient and only a small number of clinics had to repeat a pilot study. The study was able to maintain a low percentage of missing data (<0.001%) and low duplicate data entry error rate (0.10%).
conclusionsIt is critical to provide immediate follow-up in order to reinforce training and ensure the quality of the data collected and entered.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.