ArticleMethods of information in medicine2023
Rare Diseases in Hospital Information Systems-An Interoperable Methodology for Distributed Data Quality Assessments.
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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Data quality assessment in healthcare, dimensions, methods and tools: a systematic review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Pooled it
- Sharing EHR data of patients with rare diseases for research - The role of quality assessments in a national federated research data infrastructure.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- RareLink: scalable REDCap-based framework for rare disease interoperability linking international registries to FHIR and Phenopackets.NPJ genomic medicine · 2025Article
- Linking international registries to FHIR and Phenopackets with RareLink: a scalable REDCap-based framework for rare disease data interoperability.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- The METRIC-framework for assessing data quality for trustworthy AI in medicine: a systematic review.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Review
- Clinical Research Informatics: Contributions from 2023.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2024Review
- Clinical Research Informatics: a Decade-in-Review.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2024Review
- [The Medical Informatics Initiative at a glance-establishing a health research data infrastructure in Germany].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2024Article
- Recommended data elements for health registries: a survey from a German funding initiative.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
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
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.