SynthesisJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2022
Development of a framework to assess the quality of data sources in healthcare settings.
Synthesis in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Venous Access: National Guideline and Registry Development (VANGUARD): Advancing Patient-Centered Venous Access Care Through the Development of a National Coordinated Registry Network.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Guideline
- Building a healthcare data warehouse: considerations, opportunities, and challenges.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Review
- Systematic data quality assessment of electronic health record data to evaluate study-specific fitness: Report from the PRESERVE research study.PLOS digital health · 2024Article
- Scoping review of the recommendations and guidance for improving the quality of rare disease registries.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to develop a framework to assess the quality of healthcare data sources. MATERIALS AND
methodsFirst, a systematic review was performed and a thematic analysis of included literature conducted to identify items relating to the quality of healthcare data sources. Second, expert advisory group meetings were held to explore experts' perception of the results of the review and identify gaps in the findings. Third, a framework was developed based on the findings.
resultsSynthesis of the review results and expert advisory group meetings resulted in 8 parent themes and 22 subthemes. The parent themes were: Governance, leadership, and management; Data; Trust; Context; Monitoring; Use of information; Standardization; Learning and training. The 22 subthemes were: governance, finance, organization, characteristics, time, data management, data quality, ethics, access, security, quality improvement, monitoring and feedback, dissemination, analysis, research, standards, linkage, infrastructure, documentation, definitions and classification, learning, and training. DISCUSSION: The herein presented framework was developed using a robust methodology which included reviewing literature and extracting data source quality items, filtering, and matching items, developing a list of themes, and revising them based on expert opinion. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to apply a systematic approach to identify aspects related to the quality of healthcare data sources.
conclusionsThe framework, can assist those using healthcare data sources to identify and assess the quality of a data source and inform whether the data sources used are fit for their intended use.
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.