Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27557750›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2016

High quality standards for a large-scale prospective population-based observational cohort: Constances.

Fabrice Ruiz, Marcel Goldberg, Sylvie Lemonnier, Anna Ozguler, Evelyne Boos, Alain Brigand, Violaine Giraud, Thierry Perez, Nicolas Roche, Marie Zins

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Unveiling the gaps: Hypertension control beyond the cascade of care framework.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Fabrice RuizCLINSEARCH, 110 Avenue Pierre Brossolette, 92240, Malakoff, France. fabrice.ruiz@clinsearch.net.
Marcel GoldbergUMS 011 Inserm - UVSQ « Cohortes épidémiologiques en population », 16 avenue Paul Vaillant Couturier, 94 807, Villejuif, France.
Sylvie LemonnierUMS 011 Inserm - UVSQ « Cohortes épidémiologiques en population », 16 avenue Paul Vaillant Couturier, 94 807, Villejuif, France.
Anna OzgulerUMS 011 Inserm - UVSQ « Cohortes épidémiologiques en population », 16 avenue Paul Vaillant Couturier, 94 807, Villejuif, France.
Evelyne BoosCLINSEARCH, 110 Avenue Pierre Brossolette, 92240, Malakoff, France.
Alain BrigandCentre d'examens de santé d'Angoulême, 5 rue la Croix Lanauve, 16024, Angoulême, France.
Violaine GiraudAP-HP, Service de Pneumologie et d'Oncologie Thoracique, Hôpital Ambroise-Paré, Boulogne, France.
Thierry PerezService de Pneumologie et Service EFR, Hôpital Calmette, CHU Lille, F-59000, Lille, France.
Nicolas RocheEA2511, Université Paris Descartes et Service de Pneumologie, Hôpital Cochin, 27 rue du Fg Saint Jacques, 75014, Paris, France.
Marie ZinsUMS 011 Inserm - UVSQ « Cohortes épidémiologiques en population », 16 avenue Paul Vaillant Couturier, 94 807, Villejuif, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLong-term multicentre studies are subject to numerous factors that may affect the integrity of their conclusions. Quality control and standardization of data collection are crucial to minimise the biases induced by these factors. Nevertheless, tools implemented to manage biases are rarely described in publications about population-based cohorts. This report aims to describe the processes implemented to control biases in the Constances cohort taking lung function results as an example.

methodsConstances is a general-purpose population-based cohort of 200,000 participants. Volunteers attend physical examinations at baseline and then every 5 years at selected study sites. Medical device specifications and measurement methods have to comply with Standard Operating Procedures developed by experts. Protocol deviations are assessed by on-site inspections and database controls. In February 2016, more than 94,000 participants yielding around 30 million readings from physical exams, had been covered by our quality program.

resultsParticipating centres accepted to revise their practices in accordance with the study research specifications. Distributors of medical devices were asked to comply with international guidelines and Constances requirements. Close monitoring enhanced the quality of measurements and recordings of the physical exams. Regarding lung function testing, spirometry acceptability rates per operator doubled in some sites within a few months and global repeatability reached 96.7 % for 29,772 acceptable maneuvers.

conclusionsDespite Constances volunteers being followed in multiple sites with heterogeneous materials, the investment of significant resources to set up and maintain a continuous quality management process has proved effective in preventing drifts and improving accuracy of collected data.

Indexed as

Observational Studies as TopicQuality ControlCohort StudiesDatabases, FactualData CollectionHumansPopulation SurveillanceProspective StudiesPublic Health InformaticsCohort studyEpidemiological methodsMeasurement tool developmentMethodologyRespiratory

Identifiers

PMID27557750
PMCPMC4997774

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.