ArticlePloS one2023
Healthcare data quality assessment for improving the quality of the Korea Biobank Network.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Machine Learning for the Analysis of Healthy Lifestyle Data: Scoping Review and Guidelines.JMIR human factors · 2026Guideline
- Design and evaluation of an automated pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia registry from clinical data warehouses.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Development of a big data platform for collecting and utilizing clinical information from the Korea Biobank Network.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Development and application of a healthcare data quality indicator framework from the perspective of data-as-a-product.Digital healthArticle
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Numerous studies make extensive use of healthcare data, including human materials and clinical information, and acknowledge its significance. However, limitations in data collection methods can impact the quality of healthcare data obtained from multiple institutions. In order to secure high-quality data related to human materials, research focused on data quality is necessary. This study validated the quality of data collected in 2020 from 16 institutions constituting the Korea Biobank Network using 104 validation rules. The validation rules were developed based on the DQ4HEALTH model and were divided into four dimensions: completeness, validity, accuracy, and uniqueness. Korea Biobank Network collects and manages human materials and clinical information from multiple biobanks, and is in the process of developing a common data model for data integration. The results of the data quality verification revealed an error rate of 0.74%. Furthermore, an analysis of the data from each institution was performed to examine the relationship between the institution's characteristics and error count. The results from a chi-square test indicated that there was an independent correlation between each institution and its error count. To confirm this correlation between error counts and the characteristics of each institution, a correlation analysis was conducted. The results, shown in a graph, revealed the relationship between factors that had high correlation coefficients and the error count. The findings suggest that the data quality was impacted by biases in the evaluation system, including the institution's IT environment, infrastructure, and the number of collected samples. These results highlight the need to consider the scalability of research quality when evaluating clinical epidemiological information linked to human materials in future validation studies of data quality.
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.