Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40063029›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2025

Implementing Accuracy, Completeness, and Traceability for Data Reliability.

Daniel Jay Riskin, Keri L Monda, Joshua J Gagne, Robert Reynolds, A Reshad Garan, Nancy Dreyer, Paul Muntner, Brian D Bradbury

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Daniel Jay RiskinVerantos Inc, Menlo Park, California.
Keri L MondaThe Center for Observational Research, Amgen Inc, Thousand Oaks, California.
Joshua J GagneJohnson & Johnson, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Robert ReynoldsGSK, New York, New York.
A Reshad GaranHarvard Medical School, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Nancy DreyerDreyer Strategies LLC, Newton, Massachusetts.
Paul MuntnerPerisphere Real-World Evidence LLC, Austin, Texas.
Brian D BradburyThe Center for Observational Research, Amgen Inc, Thousand Oaks, California.

Funding

FDA HHS U01 FD007172
6 · The paper itself

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

Data AccuracyQuality ImprovementAsthmaFemaleHumansMaleReproducibility of ResultsUnited States

Identifiers

PMID40063029
PMCPMC11894483

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.