Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29881761›Full record

ArticleEGEMS (Washington, DC)2018

Evaluating Foundational Data Quality in the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet®).

Laura Goettinger Qualls, Thomas A Phillips, Bradley G Hammill, James Topping, Darcy M Louzao, Jeffrey S Brown, Lesley H Curtis, Keith Marsolo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EGEMS (Washington, DC), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 90 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
90citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

90 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Electronic health record data quality assessment and tools: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023
    Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. A multifaceted approach to advancing data quality and fitness standards in multi-institutional networks.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

30 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

8 authors.

Laura Goettinger QuallsDuke Clinical Research Institute, US.ORCID 0000-0003-0521-1192
Thomas A PhillipsDuke Clinical Research Institute, US.
Bradley G HammillDuke Clinical Research Institute, US.
James ToppingDuke Clinical Research Institute, US.
Darcy M LouzaoDuke Clinical Research Institute, US.
Jeffrey S BrownHarvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, US.
Lesley H CurtisDuke Clinical Research Institute, US.
Keith MarsoloCincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, US.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDistributed research networks (DRNs) are critical components of the strategic roadmaps for the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration as they work to move toward large-scale systems of evidence generation. The National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet®) is one of the first DRNs to incorporate electronic health record data from multiple domains on a national scale. Before conducting analyses in a DRN, it is important to assess the quality and characteristics of the data.

methodsPCORnet's Coordinating Center is responsible for evaluating foundational data quality, or assessing fitness-for-use across a broad research portfolio, through a process called data curation. Data curation involves a set of analytic and querying activities to assess data quality coupled with maintenance of detailed documentation and ongoing communication with network partners. The first cycle of PCORnet data curation focused on six domains in the PCORnet common data model: demographics, diagnoses, encounters, enrollment, procedures, and vitals.

resultsThe data curation process led to improvements in foundational data quality. Notable improvements included the elimination of data model conformance errors; a decrease in implausible height, weight, and blood pressure values; an increase in the volume of diagnoses and procedures; and more complete data for key analytic variables. Based on the findings of the first cycle, we made modifications to the curation process to increase efficiencies and further reduce variation among data partners. DISCUSSION: The iterative nature of the data curation process allows PCORnet to gradually increase the foundational level of data quality and reduce variability across the network. These activities help increase the transparency and reproducibility of analyses within PCORnet and can serve as a model for other DRNs.

Indexed as

data qualitydistributed research networkselectronic health recordspatient-centered carequality improvement

Identifiers

PMID29881761
PMCPMC5983028

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.