Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38177604›Full record

ReviewBundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz2024

[The impact of primary data quality and interoperability on the analysis of real-world data].

Stefanie Weber

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
In one paragraph

Review in Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Stefanie WeberAbteilung "Kodiersysteme und Register" (K), Bundesinstitut für Arzneimittel und Medizinprodukte, Kurt-Georg-Kiesinger-Allee 3, 53175, Bonn, Deutschland. stefanie.weber@bfarm.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Real-world data is increasingly becoming the focus of healthcare research in the context of digitization. The timely availability of large amounts of data gives hope that research questions can be answered quickly without additional data collection and that a direct benefit for the care of people can be achieved. Especially in acute care situations, such as heat waves or a pandemic, this can be crucial. But real-world data depend quite significantly on the quality and intent of data collection. It is also influenced by determinations on semantic and syntactic standards that are made for primary data - often considering different use cases. In the context of different initiatives on national and international levels, a holistic view on data collection and evaluation and a regular feedback mechanism between data evaluation and specifications for the collection should be established. By including requirements for secondary data evaluation in the definition processes for data collection, the informative value of the data for research can be increased in the long term.In this discussion paper, the activities for standardized data collection in the context of the digitization initiatives and the corresponding European approaches are first presented. After outlining the effects of these activities on the possibilities and difficulties of data consolidation for the analysis of real-world data, the article calls for an ongoing discourse between the different areas.

Indexed as

Data AccuracyHealth Services ResearchData CollectionGermanyHumansCode systemEHDSEuropean health data spaceRWDSemantic standardisation

Identifiers

PMID38177604
PMCPMC10834610

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.