Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37906223›Full record

ReviewJournal of medical Internet research2023

Data Quality in Health Research: Integrative Literature Review.

Filipe Andrade Bernardi, Domingos Alves, Nathalia Crepaldi, Diego Bettiol Yamada, Vinícius Costa Lima, Rui Rijo

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of medical Internet research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

46 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Mapping the Public Health Landscape in Greece: Governance, Stakeholders, Data Systems, and Policy Frameworks.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Filipe Andrade Bernardi *Ribeirão Preto School of Medicine, University of Sao Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-9597-5470
Domingos Alves *Ribeirão Preto School of Medicine, University of Sao Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-0800-5872
Nathalia CrepaldiRibeirão Preto School of Medicine, University of Sao Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-8011-868X
Diego Bettiol Yamada *Ribeirão Preto School of Medicine, University of Sao Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-6221-722X
Vinícius Costa LimaRibeirão Preto School of Medicine, University of Sao Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-2467-358X
Rui Rijo *Ribeirão Preto School of Medicine, University of Sao Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-9348-0474

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDecision-making and strategies to improve service delivery must be supported by reliable health data to generate consistent evidence on health status. The data quality management process must ensure the reliability of collected data. Consequently, various methodologies to improve the quality of services are applied in the health field. At the same time, scientific research is constantly evolving to improve data quality through better reproducibility and empowerment of researchers and offers patient groups tools for secured data sharing and privacy compliance.

objectiveThrough an integrative literature review, the aim of this work was to identify and evaluate digital health technology interventions designed to support the conducting of health research based on data quality.

methodsA search was conducted in 6 electronic scientific databases in January 2022: PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Digital Library, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist and flowchart were used to visualize the search strategy results in the databases.

resultsAfter analyzing and extracting the outcomes of interest, 33 papers were included in the review. The studies covered the period of 2017-2021 and were conducted in 22 countries. Key findings revealed variability and a lack of consensus in assessing data quality domains and metrics. Data quality factors included the research environment, application time, and development steps. Strategies for improving data quality involved using business intelligence models, statistical analyses, data mining techniques, and qualitative approaches.

conclusionsThe main barriers to health data quality are technical, motivational, economical, political, legal, ethical, organizational, human resources, and methodological. The data quality process and techniques, from precollection to gathering, postcollection, and analysis, are critical for the final result of a study or the quality of processes and decision-making in a health care organization. The findings highlight the need for standardized practices and collaborative efforts to enhance data quality in health research. Finally, context guides decisions regarding data quality strategies and techniques. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1101/2022.05.31.22275804.

Indexed as

BenchmarkingData AccuracyBiomedical TechnologyChecklistHumansReproducibility of Resultsartificial intelligencedatabasedata qualitydecision-makingdigital governancedigital healthe-managementhealth datahealth serviceshealth stakeholdershealth systemreliabilityresearchresearch networkreview

Identifiers

PMID37906223
PMCPMC10646672

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.