Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33980500›Full record

ArticleBMJ health & care informatics2021

Development of a data utility framework to support effective health data curation.

Ben Gordon, Jake Barrett, Clara Fennessy, Caroline Cake, Adam Milward, Courtney Irwin, Monica Jones, Neil Sebire

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ health & care informatics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Discovering linked data collections through a new national metadata platform.International journal of population data science · 2025
    Article
  3. A review of synthetic data terminology for privacy preserving use cases.International journal of population data science · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. MedShift: Automated Identification of Shift Data for Medical Image Dataset Curation.IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
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.

Ben GordonCentral Team, Health Data Research UK, London, UK ben.gordon@hdruk.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3105-6774
Jake BarrettCentral Team, Health Data Research UK, London, UK.
Clara FennessyCentral Team, Health Data Research UK, London, UK.
Caroline CakeCentral Team, Health Data Research UK, London, UK.
Adam MilwardData Science, MetadataWorks, London, UK.
Courtney IrwinData Science, MetadataWorks, London, UK.
Monica JonesCentral Team, Health Data Research UK, London, UK.
Neil SebireCentral Team, Health Data Research UK, London, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_19006
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe value of healthcare data is being increasingly recognised, including the need to improve health dataset utility. There is no established mechanism for evaluating healthcare dataset utility making it difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of activities improving the data. To describe the method for generating and involving the user community in developing a proposed framework for evaluation and communication of healthcare dataset utility for given research areas.

methodsAninitial version of a matrix to review datasets across a range of dimensions wasdeveloped based on previous published findings regarding healthcare data. Thiswas used to initiate a design process through interviews and surveys with datausers representing a broad range of user types and use cases, to help develop afocused framework for characterising datasets.

resultsFollowing 21 interviews, 31 survey responses and testing on 43 datasets, five major categories and 13 subcategories were identified as useful for a dataset, including Data Model, Completeness and Linkage. Each sub-category was graded to facilitate rapid and reproducible evaluation of dataset utility for specific use-cases. Testing of applicability to >40 existing datasets demonstrated potential usefulness for subsequent evaluation in real-world practice. DISCUSSION: Theresearch has developed an evidenced-based initial approach for a framework tounderstand the utility of a healthcare dataset. It likely to require further refinementfollowing wider application and additional categories may be required.

conclusionThe process has resulted in a user-centred designed framework for objectively evaluating the likely utility of specific healthcare datasets, and therefore, should be of value both for potential users of health data, and for data custodians to identify the areas to provide the optimal value for data curation investment.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceData CurationDelivery of Health CareDrug IndustryHumansMedical InformaticsState MedicineUnited KingdomBMJ health informaticshealth care sectorinformation managementinformation scienceinformation systems

Identifiers

PMID33980500
PMCPMC8117992

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.