Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41089168›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of population data science2025

Data dictionaries: essential tools for the ethical and transparent use of integrated data.

Rebecca S Pepe, Kristen Coe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Rebecca S PepeUniversity of Pennsylvania, School of Social Policy & Practice, Philadelphia, 19104.
Kristen CoeCity of Philadelphia, Office of Integrated Data for Evidence and Action, Philadelphia 19102.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Data transparency lays the groundwork for the ethical use of administrative data. This is particularly true for linked administrative data within integrated data systems (IDS). Data dictionaries, resources that maintain the metadata of the information housed in an IDS, offer a tool to ensure transparency throughout the data life cycle. The FAIR Principles, which assert that data be Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable provide a useful framework by which to measure the effectiveness of data dictionaries in the IDS context. This paper uses the FAIR Principles to discuss the ways in which data dictionaries serve as tools in the ethical and transparent use of integrated data as well as the challenges that remain. Linked administrative data is a valuable source of information for programmatic and academic research. Data dictionaries facilitate the ethical handling of this sensitive information and maintain a commitment to transparency in data inquiry and research.

Indexed as

Data CollectionConfidentialityHumansadministrative data linkagedata dictionarydata ethicsdata integrationdata transparencyFAIR principlesmetadata

Identifiers

PMID41089168
PMCPMC12517314

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.