Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27570670›Full record

ArticleAMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science2016

A novel framework for assessing metadata quality in epidemiological and public health research settings.

Christiana McMahon, Spiros Denaxas

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC
In one paragraph

Article in AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Christiana McMahonFarr Institute of Health Informatics Research; Institute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Spiros DenaxasFarr Institute of Health Informatics Research; Institute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K006584/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Metadata are critical in epidemiological and public health research. However, a lack of biomedical metadata quality frameworks and limited awareness of the implications of poor quality metadata renders data analyses problematic. In this study, we created and evaluated a novel framework to assess metadata quality of epidemiological and public health research datasets. We performed a literature review and surveyed stakeholders to enhance our understanding of biomedical metadata quality assessment. The review identified 11 studies and nine quality dimensions; none of which were specifically aimed at biomedical metadata. 96 individuals completed the survey; of those who submitted data, most only assessed metadata quality sometimes, and eight did not at all. Our framework has four sections: a) general information; b) tools and technologies; c) usability; and d) management and curation. We evaluated the framework using three test cases and sought expert feedback. The framework can assess biomedical metadata quality systematically and robustly.

Identifiers

PMID27570670
PMCPMC5001774

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.