ArticleJAMIA open2022
De-identified data quality assessment approaches by data vendors who license data to healthcare and life sciences researchers.
Article in JAMIA open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To gain insights into how data vendor companies (DVs), an important source of de-identified/anonymized licensed patient-related data (D/ALD) used in clinical informatics research in life sciences and the pharmaceutical industry, characterize, conduct, and communicate data quality assessments to researcher purchasers of D/ALD. Materials and Methods: A qualitative study with interviews of DVs executives and decision-makers in data quality assessments ( Results: Data quality, from the perspective of DVs, is characterized by how it is defined, validated, and processed. DVs identify data quality as the main contributor to successful collaborations with life sciences/pharmaceutical research partners. Data quality feedback from clients provides the basis for DVs reviews and inspections of quality processes. DVs value customer interactions, view collaboration, shared common goals, mutual expertise, and communication related to data quality as success factors. Conclusion: Data quality evaluation practices are important. However, no uniform DVs industry standards for data quality assessment were identified. DVs describe their orientation to data quality evaluation as a direct result of not only the complex nature of data sources, but also of techniques, processes, and approaches used to construct data sets. Because real-world data (RWD), eg, patient data from electronic medical records, is used for real-world evidence (RWE) generation, the use of D/ALD will expand and require refinement. The focus on (and rigor in) data quality assessment (particularly in research necessary to make regulatory decisions) will require more structure, standards, and collaboration between DVs, life sciences/pharmaceutical, informaticists, and RWD/RWE policy-making stakeholders.
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.