Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31077148›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2019

Reducing defects in the datasets of clinical research studies: conformance with data quality metrics.

Naila A Shaheen, Bipin Manezhi, Abin Thomas, Mohammed AlKelya

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Identifying and Deploying Benchmarks for Clinical Research at Sites.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Data Quality in Health Research: Integrative Literature Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023
    Review
  5. 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

4 authors.

Naila A ShaheenDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, P.O. Box 22490, Mail Code 1515, Riyadh, 11426, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. ashrafna@ngha.med.sa.ORCID 0000-0001-8756-3591
Bipin ManezhiPublic Health Division, Central Australian Aboriginal Congress, Alice Springs, Australia.
Abin ThomasDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, P.O. Box 22490, Mail Code 1515, Riyadh, 11426, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Mohammed AlKelyaResearch Quality Management Section, King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA dataset is indispensable to answer the research questions of clinical research studies. Inaccurate data lead to ambiguous results, and the removal of errors results in increased cost. The aim of this Quality Improvement Project (QIP) was to improve the Data Quality (DQ) by enhancing conformance and minimizing data entry errors.

methodsThis is a QIP which was conducted in the Department of Biostatistics using historical datasets submitted for statistical data analysis from the department's knowledge base system. Forty-five datasets received for statistical data analysis, were included at baseline. A 12-item checklist based on six DQ domains (i) completeness (ii) uniqueness (iii) timeliness (iv) accuracy (v) validity and (vi) consistency was developed to assess the DQ. The checklist was comprised of 12 items; missing values, un-coded values, miscoded values, embedded values, implausible values, unformatted values, missing codebook, inconsistencies with the codebook, inaccurate format, unanalyzable data structure, missing outcome variables, and missing analytic variables. The outcome was the number of defects per dataset. Quality improvement DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control) framework and sigma improvement tools were used. Pre-Post design was implemented using mode of interventions. Pre-Post change in defects (zero, one, two or more defects) was compared by using chi-square test.

resultsAt baseline, out of forty-five datasets; six (13.3%) datasets had zero defects, eight (17.8%) had one defect, and 31(69%) had ≥2 defects. The association between the nature of data capture (single vs. multiple data points) and defective data was statistically significant (p = 0.008). Twenty-one datasets were received during post-intervention for statistical data analysis. Seventeen (81%) had zero defects, two (9.5%) had one defect, and two (9.5%) had two or more defects. The proportion of datasets with zero defects had increased from 13.3 to 81%, whereas the proportion of datasets with two or more defects had decreased from 69 to 9.5% (p = < 0.001).

conclusionClinical research study teams often have limited knowledge of data structuring. Given the need for good quality data, we recommend training programs, consultation with data experts prior to data structuring and use of electronic data capturing methods.

Indexed as

Data AccuracyDatasets as TopicHumansQuality ControlResearch DesignClinical research data qualityData entry errorsData quality managementData quality metricsDefective datasetPoor-quality dataset

Identifiers

PMID31077148
PMCPMC6511206

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.