ArticleEGEMS (Washington, DC)2019
Data Quality Assessment and Multi-Organizational Reporting: Tools to Enhance Network Knowledge.
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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using Multistate Models and Qualitative Interviews to Comprehensively Characterize Substance Use Disorder Care Transitions in a US Health Care System: Protocol for a Mixed-Methods Study.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Beyond Missingness: Systematizing Methods for Comprehensive Data Fitness Assessment in Clinical Research.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Temporal Trends in Pregnancy Rate, Live Birth Rates, and Rates of Gestational Outcomes, 2012-2023.O&G open · 2026Article
- Alcohol consumption reported on routine healthcare screenings is associated with all-cause mortality in primary care patients: A retrospective cohort study.Alcohol, clinical & experimental research · 2025Article
- Electronic Health Record Data Quality and Performance Assessments: Scoping Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2024Article
- Systematic data quality assessment of electronic health record data to evaluate study-specific fitness: Report from the PRESERVE research study.PLOS digital health · 2024Article
- Longitudinal adherence to breast cancer surveillance following cancer genetic testing in an integrated health care system.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2023Article
- Risk management actions following genetic testing in the Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) Study: A prospective cohort study.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Risk-reducing surgery in unaffected individuals receiving cancer genetic testing in an integrated health care system.Cancer · 2022Article
- Synergies between centralized and federated approaches to data quality: a report from the national COVID cohort collaborative.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022Article
- Developing a systematic approach to assessing data quality in secondary use of clinical data based on intended use.Learning health systems · 2022Article
- 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What 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.