Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34941540›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2021

Identifying Data Quality Dimensions for Person-Generated Wearable Device Data: Multi-Method Study.

Sylvia Cho, Chunhua Weng, Michael G Kahn, Karthik Natarajan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Contrastive Dimension Reduction: A Systematic Review.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Computational statistics · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Contrastive dimension reduction: when and how?Advances in neural information processing systems · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Data Provenance in Biomedical Research: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. An interactive fitness-for-use data completeness tool to assess activity tracker data.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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.

Sylvia ChoDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-0263-0343
Chunhua WengDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-9624-0214
Michael G KahnDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-4786-6875
Karthik NatarajanDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-9066-9431

Funding

Enhancing All of Us Data Resources for Nutrition Precision Health: the All of Us Data and Research CenterU2COD023196 · OD · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI GLAZER, DAVID, HARRIS, PAUL A. · 2016 to 2022
$143.7M
Open Health Natural Language Processing CollaboratoryU01TR002062 · NCATS · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI JIANG, XIAOQIAN, LIU, HONGFANG · 2017 to 2021
$7.6M
NCATS NIH HHS U01 TR002062NIH HHS U2C OD023196
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is a growing interest in using person-generated wearable device data for biomedical research, but there are also concerns regarding the quality of data such as missing or incorrect data. This emphasizes the importance of assessing data quality before conducting research. In order to perform data quality assessments, it is essential to define what data quality means for person-generated wearable device data by identifying the data quality dimensions.

objectiveThis study aims to identify data quality dimensions for person-generated wearable device data for research purposes.

methodsThis study was conducted in 3 phases: literature review, survey, and focus group discussion. The literature review was conducted following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guideline to identify factors affecting data quality and its associated data quality challenges. In addition, we conducted a survey to confirm and complement results from the literature review and to understand researchers' perceptions on data quality dimensions that were previously identified as dimensions for the secondary use of electronic health record (EHR) data. We sent the survey to researchers with experience in analyzing wearable device data. Focus group discussion sessions were conducted with domain experts to derive data quality dimensions for person-generated wearable device data. On the basis of the results from the literature review and survey, a facilitator proposed potential data quality dimensions relevant to person-generated wearable device data, and the domain experts accepted or rejected the suggested dimensions.

resultsIn total, 19 studies were included in the literature review, and 3 major themes emerged: device- and technical-related, user-related, and data governance-related factors. The associated data quality problems were incomplete data, incorrect data, and heterogeneous data. A total of 20 respondents answered the survey. The major data quality challenges faced by researchers were completeness, accuracy, and plausibility. The importance ratings on data quality dimensions in an existing framework showed that the dimensions for secondary use of EHR data are applicable to person-generated wearable device data. There were 3 focus group sessions with domain experts in data quality and wearable device research. The experts concluded that intrinsic data quality features, such as conformance, completeness, and plausibility, and contextual and fitness-for-use data quality features, such as completeness (breadth and density) and temporal data granularity, are important data quality dimensions for assessing person-generated wearable device data for research purposes.

conclusionsIn this study, intrinsic and contextual and fitness-for-use data quality dimensions for person-generated wearable device data were identified. The dimensions were adapted from data quality terminologies and frameworks for the secondary use of EHR data with a few modifications. Further research on how data quality can be assessed with respect to each dimension is needed.

Indexed as

Data AccuracyWearable Electronic DevicesElectronic Health RecordsHumansResearch DesignSurveys and Questionnairesdata accuracydata qualityfitness trackerspatient-generated health dataqualitative researchwearable device

Identifiers

PMID34941540
PMCPMC8738984

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.