ArticleInternational journal of population data science2025
Minimum elements for reporting a multi-jurisdiction feasibility assessment of algorithms based on routinely collected health data: Health Data Research Network Canada recommendations.
Article in International journal of population data science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Research and surveillance using routinely collected health data rely on algorithms or definitions to ascertain disease cases or health measures. Whenever algorithm validation studies are not possible due to the unavailability of a reference standard, algorithm feasibility studies can be used to create and assess algorithms for use in more than one population or jurisdiction. Publication of the methods used to conduct feasibility studies is critical for reproducibility and transparency. Existing guidelines applicable to feasibility studies include the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) and REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely collected health Data (RECORD) guidelines. These guidelines may benefit from additional elements that capture aspects particular to multi-jurisdiction algorithm feasibility studies and ensure their reproducibility. The aim of this paper is to identify the minimum elements for reporting feasibility studies to ensure reproducibility and transparency. Methods: A subcommittee of four individuals with expertise in routinely collected health data, multi-jurisdiction health research, and algorithm development and implementation was formed from Health Data Research Network (HDRN) Canada's Algorithms and Harmonized Data Working Group (AHD-WG). The subcommittee reviewed items within the STROBE and RECORD guidelines and evaluated these items against published feasibility studies. Items to ensure transparent reporting of feasibility studies not contained within STROBE or RECORD guidelines were identified through consensus by subcommittee members using the Nominal Group Technique. The AHD-WG reviewed and approved these additional recommended elements. Results: Eleven new recommended elements were identified: one element for the title and abstract, one for the introduction, five for the methods, and four for the results sections. Recommended elements primarily addressed reporting jurisdictional data variabilities, data harmonization methods, and algorithm implementation techniques. Significance: Implementation of these recommended elements, alongside the RECORD guidelines, is intended to encourage consistent publication of methods that support reproducibility, as well as increase comparability of algorithms and their use in national and international studies.
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.