ArticleStatistical journal of the IAOS2024
Evaluating data quality for blended data using a data quality framework.
Article in Statistical journal of the IAOS, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Public Trust, Private Data: Four Considerations for the Future of Health.American journal of public health · 2026Article
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
In 2020 the U.S. Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology (FCSM) released "A Framework for Data Quality", organized by 11 dimensions of data quality grouped among three domains of quality (utility, objectivity, integrity). This paper addresses the use of the FCSM Framework for data quality assessments of blended data. The FCSM Framework applies to all types of data, however best practices for implementation have not been documented. We applied the FCSM Framework for three health-research related case studies. For each case study, assessments of data quality dimensions were performed to identify threats to quality, possible mitigations of those threats, and trade-offs among them. From these assessments the authors concluded: 1) data quality assessments are more complex in practice than anticipated and expert guidance and documentation are important; 2) each dimension may not be equally important for different data uses; 3) data quality assessments can be subjective and having a quantitative tool could help explain the results, however, quantitative assessments may be closely tied to the intended use of the dataset; 4) there are common trade-offs and mitigations for some threats to quality among dimensions. This paper is one of the first to apply the FCSM Framework to specific use-cases and illustrates a process for similar data uses.
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.