Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33244417›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2020

Guidelines for Data Acquisition, Quality and Curation for Observational Research Designs (DAQCORD).

Ari Ercole, Vibeke Brinck, Pradeep George, Ramona Hicks, Jilske Huijben, Michael Jarrett, Mary Vassar, Lindsay Wilson, DAQCORD collaborators

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. A Standardized Guideline for Assessing Extracted Electronic Health Records Cohorts: A Scoping Review.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors.

Ari ErcoleDepartment of Medicine, Division of Anaesthesia, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8350-8093
Vibeke BrinckQuesGen Systems, Inc, Burlingame, CA, USA.
Pradeep GeorgeInternational Neuroinformatics Coordinating Facility, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6771-2828
Ramona HicksOne Mind, Rutherford, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7418-6221
Jilske HuijbenDepartment of Public Health, Center for Medical Decision Sciences, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2892-5406
Michael JarrettQuesGen Systems, Inc, Burlingame, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0292-4728
Mary VassarDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6748-6939
Lindsay WilsonDivision of Psychology, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4113-2328
DAQCORD collaborators

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHigh-quality data are critical to the entire scientific enterprise, yet the complexity and effort involved in data curation are vastly under-appreciated. This is especially true for large observational, clinical studies because of the amount of multimodal data that is captured and the opportunity for addressing numerous research questions through analysis, either alone or in combination with other data sets. However, a lack of details concerning data curation methods can result in unresolved questions about the robustness of the data, its utility for addressing specific research questions or hypotheses and how to interpret the results. We aimed to develop a framework for the design, documentation and reporting of data curation methods in order to advance the scientific rigour, reproducibility and analysis of the data.

methodsForty-six experts participated in a modified Delphi process to reach consensus on indicators of data curation that could be used in the design and reporting of studies.

resultsWe identified 46 indicators that are applicable to the design, training/testing, run time and post-collection phases of studies.

conclusionThe Data Acquisition, Quality and Curation for Observational Research Designs (DAQCORD) Guidelines are the first comprehensive set of data quality indicators for large observational studies. They were developed around the needs of neuroscience projects, but we believe they are relevant and generalisable, in whole or in part, to other fields of health research, and also to smaller observational studies and preclinical research. The DAQCORD Guidelines provide a framework for achieving high-quality data; a cornerstone of health research.

Indexed as

curationData qualityDelphi processdesignobservational studiesreporting

Identifiers

PMID33244417
PMCPMC7681114

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.