Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35737436›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2022

Strategies and Lessons Learned During Cleaning of Data From Research Panel Participants: Cross-sectional Web-Based Health Behavior Survey Study.

Mariana Arevalo, Naomi C Brownstein, Junmin Whiting, Cathy D Meade, Clement K Gwede, Susan T Vadaparampil, Kristin J Tillery, Jessica Y Islam, Anna R Giuliano, Shannon M Christy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Design and implementation of data quality controls in the EQ-DAPHNIE study: insights from the pilot phase and 15-country analysis.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

10 authors.

Mariana ArevaloDepartment of Health Outcomes and Behavior, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5825-532X
Naomi C BrownsteinDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9991-427X
Junmin WhitingDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1515-5200
Cathy D MeadeDepartment of Health Outcomes and Behavior, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6422-8248
Clement K GwedeDepartment of Health Outcomes and Behavior, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1630-7333
Susan T VadaparampilDepartment of Health Outcomes and Behavior, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1052-6917
Kristin J TilleryParticipant Research, Interventions, and Measurement Core, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5507-1143
Jessica Y IslamDepartment of Oncological Sciences, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3690-3848
Anna R GiulianoDepartment of Oncological Sciences, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5440-8859
Shannon M Christy *Department of Health Outcomes and Behavior, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5306-7020

Funding

TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCHP30CA076292 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA · PI Christine O'Connell · 1998 to 2026
$93.5M
South Carolina Clinical & Translational Research Institute (SCTR)UL1TR001450 · NCATS · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI BRADY, KATHLEEN T., FLUME, PATRICK A · 2015 to 2024
$41.1M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001450NCI NIH HHS P30 CA076292
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of web-based methods to collect population-based health behavior data has burgeoned over the past two decades. Researchers have used web-based platforms and research panels to study a myriad of topics. Data cleaning prior to statistical analysis of web-based survey data is an important step for data integrity. However, the data cleaning processes used by research teams are often not reported.

objectiveThe objectives of this manuscript are to describe the use of a systematic approach to clean the data collected via a web-based platform from panelists and to share lessons learned with other research teams to promote high-quality data cleaning process improvements.

methodsData for this web-based survey study were collected from a research panel that is available for scientific and marketing research. Participants (N=4000) were panelists recruited either directly or through verified partners of the research panel, were aged 18 to 45 years, were living in the United States, had proficiency in the English language, and had access to the internet. Eligible participants completed a health behavior survey via Qualtrics. Informed by recommendations from the literature, our interdisciplinary research team developed and implemented a systematic and sequential plan to inform data cleaning processes. This included the following: (1) reviewing survey completion speed, (2) identifying consecutive responses, (3) identifying cases with contradictory responses, and (4) assessing the quality of open-ended responses. Implementation of these strategies is described in detail, and the Checklist for E-Survey Data Integrity is offered as a tool for other investigators.

resultsData cleaning procedures resulted in the removal of 1278 out of 4000 (31.95%) response records, which failed one or more data quality checks. First, approximately one-sixth of records (n=648, 16.20%) were removed because respondents completed the survey unrealistically quickly (ie, <10 minutes). Next, 7.30% (n=292) of records were removed because they contained evidence of consecutive responses. A total of 4.68% (n=187) of records were subsequently removed due to instances of conflicting responses. Finally, a total of 3.78% (n=151) of records were removed due to poor-quality open-ended responses. Thus, after these data cleaning steps, the final sample contained 2722 responses, representing 68.05% of the original sample.

conclusionsExamining data integrity and promoting transparency of data cleaning reporting is imperative for web-based survey research. Ensuring a high quality of data both prior to and following data collection is important. Our systematic approach helped eliminate records flagged as being of questionable quality. Data cleaning and management procedures should be reported more frequently, and systematic approaches should be adopted as standards of good practice in this type of research.

Indexed as

data cleaningdata integritydata managementhealth behaviorinterdisciplinary researchinternetquality assessmentresearch panelsurveys and questionnairesweb-based survey

Identifiers

PMID35737436
PMCPMC9264135

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.