Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39349949›Full record

ReviewNPJ digital medicine2024

Overcoming biases of individual level shopping history data in health research.

Anya Skatova

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in NPJ digital medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Linking digital footprint data into longitudinal population studies.International journal of population data science · 2025
    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

1 author.

Anya SkatovaDigital Footprints Lab & Medical Research Council Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol, Population Health Science, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. anya.skatova@bristol.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0300-4990

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Novel sources of population data, especially administrative and medical records, as well as the digital footprints generated through interactions with online services, present a considerable opportunity for advancing health research and policymaking. An illustrative example is shopping history records that can illuminate aspects of population health by scrutinizing extensive sets of everyday choices made in the real world. However, like any dataset, these sources possess specific limitations, including sampling biases, validity issues, and measurement errors. To enhance the applicability and potential of shopping data in health research, we advocate for the integration of individual-level shopping data with external datasets containing rich repositories of longitudinal population cohort studies. This strategic approach holds the promise of devising innovative methodologies to address inherent data limitations and biases. By meticulously documenting biases, establishing validated associations, and discerning patterns within these amalgamated records, researchers can extrapolate their findings to encompass population-wide datasets derived from national supermarket chain. The validation and linkage of population health data with real-world choices pertaining to food, beverages, and over-the-counter medications, such as pain relief, present a significant opportunity to comprehend the impact of these choices and behavioural patterns associated with them on public health.

Identifiers

PMID39349949
PMCPMC11442457

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.