Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36596461›Full record

ArticleMethods of information in medicine2023

Rare Diseases in Hospital Information Systems-An Interoperable Methodology for Distributed Data Quality Assessments.

Kais Tahar, Tamara Martin, Yongli Mou, Raphael Verbuecheln, Holm Graessner, Dagmar Krefting

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Methods of information in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Clinical Research Informatics: Contributions from 2023.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2024
    Review
  7. Clinical Research Informatics: a Decade-in-Review.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2024
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

6 authors.

Kais TaharDepartment of Medical Informatics, University Medical Center Göttingen, Georg-August-University, Göttingen, Germany.
Tamara MartinCentre for Rare Diseases, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Yongli MouChair of Computer Science 5, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
Raphael VerbuechelnMedical Data Integration Center, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Holm GraessnerCentre for Rare Diseases, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Dagmar KreftingDepartment of Medical Informatics, University Medical Center Göttingen, Georg-August-University, Göttingen, Germany.

Funding

01ZZ1911O,01ZZ1911R Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMultisite research networks such as the project "Collaboration on Rare Diseases" connect various hospitals to obtain sufficient data for clinical research. However, data quality (DQ) remains a challenge for the secondary use of data recorded in different health information systems. High levels of DQ as well as appropriate quality assessment methods are needed to support the reuse of such distributed data.

objectivesThe aim of this work is the development of an interoperable methodology for assessing the quality of data recorded in heterogeneous sources to improve the quality of rare disease (RD) documentation and support clinical research.

methodsWe first developed a conceptual framework for DQ assessment. Using this theoretical guidance, we implemented a software framework that provides appropriate tools for calculating DQ metrics and for generating local as well as cross-institutional reports. We further applied our methodology on synthetic data distributed across multiple hospitals using Personal Health Train. Finally, we used precision and recall as metrics to validate our implementation.

resultsFour DQ dimensions were defined and represented as disjunct ontological categories. Based on these top dimensions, 9 DQ concepts, 10 DQ indicators, and 25 DQ parameters were developed and applied to different data sets. Randomly introduced DQ issues were all identified and reported automatically. The generated reports show the resulting DQ indicators and detected DQ issues.

conclusionWe have shown that our approach yields promising results, which can be used for local and cross-institutional DQ assessments. The developed frameworks provide useful methods for interoperable and privacy-preserving assessments of DQ that meet the specified requirements. This study has demonstrated that our methodology is capable of detecting DQ issues such as ambiguity or implausibility of coded diagnoses. It can be used for DQ benchmarking to improve the quality of RD documentation and to support clinical research on distributed data.

Indexed as

Health Information SystemsHospital Information SystemsData AccuracyHospitalsHumansRare Diseases

Identifiers

PMID36596461
PMCPMC10462432

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.