Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30972357›Full record

ArticleEGEMS (Washington, DC)2019

Data Quality Assessment and Multi-Organizational Reporting: Tools to Enhance Network Knowledge.

Sanchita Sengupta, Don Bachman, Reesa Laws, Gwyn Saylor, Jenny Staab, Daniel Vaughn, Qing Zhou, Alan Bauck

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EGEMS (Washington, DC), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

8 authors.

Sanchita SenguptaKaiser Permanente Northwest, Center for Health Research, US.
Don BachmanKaiser Permanente Northwest, Center for Health Research, US.
Reesa LawsKaiser Permanente Northwest, Center for Health Research, US.
Gwyn SaylorKaiser Permanente Northwest, Center for Health Research, US.
Jenny StaabKaiser Permanente Northwest, Center for Health Research, US.
Daniel VaughnKaiser Permanente Northwest, Center for Health Research, US.
Qing ZhouKaiser Permanente Northwest, Center for Health Research, US.
Alan BauckKaiser Permanente Northwest, Center for Health Research, US.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveMulti-organizational research requires a multi-organizational data quality assessment (DQA) process that combines and compares data across participating organizations. We demonstrate how such a DQA approach complements traditional checks of internal reliability and validity by allowing for assessments of data consistency and the evaluation of data patterns in the absence of an external "gold standard."

methodsWe describe the DQA process employed by the Data Coordinating Center (DCC) for Kaiser Permanente's (KP) Center for Effectiveness and Safety Research (CESR). We emphasize the CESR DQA reporting system that compares data summaries from the eight KP organizations in a consistent, standardized manner.

resultsWe provide examples of multi-organization comparisons from DQA to confirm expectations about different aspects of data quality. These include: 1) comparison of direct data extraction from the electronic health records (EHR) and 2) comparison of non-EHR data from disparate sources. DISCUSSION: The CESR DCC has developed codes and procedures for efficiently implementing and reporting DQA. The CESR DCC approach is to 1) distribute DQA tools to empower data managers at each organization to assess their data quality at any time, 2) summarize and disseminate findings to address data shortfalls or document idiosyncrasies, and 3) engage data managers and end-users in an exchange of knowledge about the quality and its fitness for use.

conclusionThe KP CESR DQA model is applicable to networks hoping to improve data quality. The multi-organizational reporting system promotes transparency of DQA, adds to network knowledge about data quality, and informs research.

Indexed as

Data NetworkMulti-organizational Data Quality AssessmentMulti-organizational ResearchVirtual Data Warehouse

Identifiers

PMID30972357
PMCPMC6450241

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.