ArticleJAMIA open2021
An exploratory data quality analysis of time series physiologic signals using a large-scale intensive care unit database.
Article in JAMIA open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Challenges for Data Quality in the Clinical Data Life Cycle: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Digital Health Data Quality Issues: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Pooled it
- Benchmarking imputation methods on real-world clinical time series with simulated spatio-temporal missingness.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Discovery of data quality issues in electronic health records: profound consequences for critical care medicine applications - a systematized review.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Review
- Development of an Open-Source Annotated Glaucoma Medication Dataset From Clinical Notes in the Electronic Health Record.Translational vision science & technology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Physiological data, such as heart rate and blood pressure, are critical to clinical decision-making in the intensive care unit (ICU). Vital signs data, which are available from electronic health records, can be used to diagnose and predict important clinical outcomes; While there have been some reports on the data quality of nurse-verified vital sign data, little has been reported on the data quality of higher frequency time-series vital signs acquired in ICUs, that would enable such predictive modeling. In this study, we assessed the data quality issues, defined as the completeness, accuracy, and timeliness, of minute-by-minute time series vital signs data within the MIMIC-III data set, captured from 16009 patient-ICU stays and corresponding to 9410 unique adult patients. We measured data quality of four time-series vital signs data streams in the MIMIC-III data set: heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (RR), blood oxygen saturation (SpO2), and arterial blood pressure (ABP). Approximately, 30% of patient-ICU stays did not have at least 1 min of data during the time-frame of the ICU stay for HR, RR, and SpO2. The percentage of patient-ICU stays that did not have at least 1 min of ABP data was ∼56%. We observed ∼80% coverage of the total duration of the ICU stay for HR, RR, and SpO2. Finally, only 12.5%%, 9.9%, 7.5%, and 4.4% of ICU lengths of stay had ≥ 99% data available for HR, RR, SpO2, and ABP, respectively, that would meet the three data quality requirements we looked into in this study. Our findings on data completeness, accuracy, and timeliness have important implications for data scientists and informatics researchers who use time series vital signs data to develop predictive models of ICU outcomes.
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.