ArticleJAMA network open2025
Implementing Accuracy, Completeness, and Traceability for Data Reliability.
Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- External Control Arms in Japan: A Systematic Case Analysis of Documented Regulatory Implementation and Uncertainty Management.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Article
- Regulatory Convergence in Cell and Gene Therapy: Harmonizing Quality, CMC, and Approval Pathways Across the FDA, EMA, PMDA, and Emerging Markets.Biotech (Basel (Switzerland)) · 2026Review
- Design and evaluation of an automated pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia registry from clinical data warehouses.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Ensuring Reliability of Curated Electronic Health Record-Derived Data: The Validation of Accuracy for Large Language Model-/Machine Learning-Extracted Information and Data (VALID) Framework.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2026Article
- Realising precision oncology through shared real-world data infrastructure.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2026Article
- Complexities and capabilities of Scan4Safety in NHS hospitals: a qualitative study of a national demonstrator site.BMJ health & care informatics · 2026Article
- A real-world data challenge: guidance for aligning data privacy compliance and fit-for-purpose usability.Health affairs scholar · 2025Article
- The Guardian Research Network: A Real-World Data Source for Pharmacoepidemiologic Research and Regulatory Applications.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2025Article
- Errors in Key Points, Abstract, Results, Table 2, and Conflict of Interest Disclosures.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- INSIGHTS Asthma Pragmatic Registry - A Pragmatic Approach to High-Validity Real-World Evidence for Asthma.Pragmatic and observational research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: While it is well known that data quality underlies evidence validity, the measurement and impacts of data reliability are less well understood. The need has been highlighted in the 21st Century Cures Act of 2016 and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Real-World Evidence Program framework in 2018, draft guidance in 2021 and final guidance in 2024. Timely visibility into implementation may be provided by the Transforming Real-World Evidence With Unstructured and Structured Data to Advance Tailored Therapy (TRUST) study, a Verantos Inc-led FDA-funded demonstration project to explore data quality and inform regulatory decision-making. Objective: To report early learnings from the TRUST study on distilling data reliability to practice including developing a practical approach to quantify accuracy, completeness, and traceability of real-world data (routinely collected patient health data) and comparing traditional to advanced data and technologies on these dimensions. Design, Setting, and Participants: This quality improvement study was performed using data from 58 hospitals and more than 1180 associated outpatient clinics from academic and community settings in the US. Participants included patients with asthma treated between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2022. Data were analyzed from January 1 to June 30, 2024. Exposures: The traditional approach used medical and pharmacy claims as source documentation. The advanced approach used medical and pharmacy claims, electronic health records with unstructured data extracted using artificial intelligence methods, and mortality registry data. Main Outcomes and Measures: Accuracy was assessed using the F1 score. Completeness was estimated as a weighted mean of available data sources during each calendar year under study for each patient. Traceability was estimated as the proportion of data elements identified in clinical source documentation. Results: In total, 120 616 patients met the minimum data requirements (mean [SD] age, 43.2 [18.5] years; 41 011 male [34.0%]). For accuracy, traditional approaches had F1 scores of 59.5% and advanced approaches had scores of 93.4%. For completeness, traditional approaches yielded mean scores of 46.1% (95% CI, 38.2%-54.0%); advanced approaches, 96.6% (95% CI, 85.8%-1.1%). For traceability, traditional approaches had 11.5% (95% CI, 11.4%-11.5%) and advanced approaches had 77.3% (95% CI, 77.3%-77.3%) of data elements traceable to clinical source data. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, practical implementation of data reliability measurement is described. Findings suggest the potential of using multiple data sources and applying advanced methods to increase real-world data reliability. The inclusion of data reliability standards when generating evidence from these sources has the potential to strengthen support for the use of real-world evidence in the prescription, reimbursement, and approval of medications.
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.