ArticleScientific data2023
Chronic disease outcome metadata from German observational studies - public availability and FAIR principles.
Article in Scientific data, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association Between Sedentary Behavior and the Development of New-Onset Chronic Pain in Older American Adults: Insights From the Health and Retirement Study.American journal of health promotion : AJHP · 2026Article
- Toward a Domain-Overarching Metadata Schema for Making Health Research Studies FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable): Development of the NFDI4Health Metadata Schema.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Metadata from epidemiological studies, including chronic disease outcome metadata (CDOM), are important to be findable to allow interpretability and reusability. We propose a comprehensive metadata schema and used it to assess public availability and findability of CDOM from German population-based observational studies participating in the consortium National Research Data Infrastructure for Personal Health Data (NFDI4Health). Additionally, principal investigators from the included studies completed a checklist evaluating consistency with FAIR principles (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, Reusability) within their studies. Overall, six of sixteen studies had complete publicly available CDOM. The most frequent CDOM source was scientific publications and the most frequently missing metadata were availability of codes of the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10). Principal investigators' main perceived barriers for consistency with FAIR principles were limited human and financial resources. Our results reveal that CDOM from German population-based studies have incomplete availability and limited findability. There is a need to make CDOM publicly available in searchable platforms or metadata catalogues to improve their FAIRness, which requires human and financial resources.
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.