ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2018
Defining and Developing a Generic Framework for Monitoring Data Quality in Clinical Research.
Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2018. 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.
- Addressing biomedical data challenges and opportunities to inform a large-scale data lifecycle for enhanced data sharing, interoperability, analysis, and collaboration across stakeholders.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Developing a systematic approach to assessing data quality in secondary use of clinical data based on intended use.Learning health systems · 2022Article
- Facilitating harmonized data quality assessments. A data quality framework for observational health research data collections with software implementations in R.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Article
- A Rule-Based Data Quality Assessment System for Electronic Health Record Data.Applied clinical informatics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Evidence for the need for high data quality in clinical research is well established. The rigor of clinical research conclusions rely heavily on good quality data, which relies on good documentation practices. Little attention has been given to clear guidelines and definitions to monitor data quality. To address this, a "fit-for-use" data quality monitoring framework (DQMF) for clinical research was developed based on a holistic design-oriented approach. An integrated literature review and feasibility study underpinned the framework development. Ontology of key terms, concepts, methods, and standards were recorded using a consensus approach and mind mapping technique. The DQMF is presented as a nested concentric network illustrating concept relationships and hierarchy. Face validation was conducted, and common terminology and definitions are listed. The consolidated DQMF can be adapted according to study context and data availability aiding in the development of a long-term strategy with increased efficacy for clinical data quality monitoring.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30815172PMC6371251What 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.