Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34233730›Full record

Observational studyArthritis research & therapy2021

Implementing an automated monitoring process in a digital, longitudinal observational cohort study.

Lisa Lindner, Anja Weiß, Andreas Reich, Siegfried Kindler, Frank Behrens, Jürgen Braun, Joachim Listing, Georg Schett, Joachim Sieper, Anja Strangfeld and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Arthritis research & therapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

11 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Lisa LindnerEpidemiology Unit, German Rheumatism Research Centre (DRFZ), Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany. lisa.lindner@drfz.de.ORCID 0000-0001-8416-0463
Anja WeißEpidemiology Unit, German Rheumatism Research Centre (DRFZ), Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Andreas ReichEpidemiology Unit, German Rheumatism Research Centre (DRFZ), Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Siegfried KindlerEpidemiology Unit, German Rheumatism Research Centre (DRFZ), Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Frank BehrensRheumatology, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany.
Jürgen BraunRheumazentrum Ruhrgebiet, Herne, Germany.
Joachim ListingEpidemiology Unit, German Rheumatism Research Centre (DRFZ), Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Georg SchettRheumatology and Immunology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.
Joachim SieperCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, CBF, Berlin, Germany.
Anja StrangfeldEpidemiology Unit, German Rheumatism Research Centre (DRFZ), Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Anne C RegiererEpidemiology Unit, German Rheumatism Research Centre (DRFZ), Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
German Rheumatism Research Centre · DECharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEGoethe University Frankfurt · DERheumazentrum Ruhrgebiet · DEUniversitätsklinikum Erlangen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical data collection requires correct and complete data sets in order to perform correct statistical analysis and draw valid conclusions. While in randomized clinical trials much effort concentrates on data monitoring, this is rarely the case in observational studies- due to high numbers of cases and often-restricted resources. We have developed a valid and cost-effective monitoring tool, which can substantially contribute to an increased data quality in observational research.

methodsAn automated digital monitoring system for cohort studies developed by the German Rheumatism Research Centre (DRFZ) was tested within the disease register RABBIT-SpA, a longitudinal observational study including patients with axial spondyloarthritis and psoriatic arthritis. Physicians and patients complete electronic case report forms (eCRF) twice a year for up to 10 years. Automatic plausibility checks were implemented to verify all data after entry into the eCRF. To identify conflicts that cannot be found by this approach, all possible conflicts were compiled into a catalog. This "conflict catalog" was used to create queries, which are displayed as part of the eCRF. The proportion of queried eCRFs and responses were analyzed by descriptive methods. For the analysis of responses, the type of conflict was assigned to either a single conflict only (affecting individual items) or a conflict that required the entire eCRF to be queried.

resultsData from 1883 patients was analyzed. A total of n = 3145 eCRFs submitted between baseline (T0) and T3 (12 months) had conflicts (40-64%). Fifty-six to 100% of the queries regarding eCRFs that were completely missing were answered. A mean of 1.4 to 2.4 single conflicts occurred per eCRF, of which 59-69% were answered. The most common missing values were CRP, ESR, Schober's test, data on systemic glucocorticoid therapy, and presence of enthesitis.

conclusionProviding high data quality in large observational cohort studies is a major challenge, which requires careful monitoring. An automated monitoring process was successfully implemented and well accepted by the study centers. Two thirds of the queries were answered with new data. While conventional manual monitoring is resource-intensive and may itself create new sources of errors, automated processes are a convenient way to augment data quality.

Indexed as

SpondylarthritisCohort StudiesCost-Benefit AnalysisData CollectionHumansLongitudinal StudiesData monitoringData validationObservational studySpondyloarthritis

Identifiers

PMID34233730
PMCPMC8262053
OpenAlexW3150179797

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.