ArticleCanada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada2025
Minimum data cleaning recommendations for infection prevention and control acute care surveillance reporting: A solution for "garbage in, garbage out".
Article in Canada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Outcome surveillance is an important component of infection prevention and control (IPAC) programs to guide healthcare decisions. It is crucial that the reported data are of the highest quality. Reviewing completeness, accuracy and timeliness of the data is important to reduce data inconsistencies. However, many IPAC staff do not have training in data cleaning or data quality activities. Methods: Expert epidemiologists across Canada have created best practice guidance for data quality activities to provide sufficient detail to improve this important patient safety activity. Most of these activities are simple checks to review the accuracy of the data without requiring additional review of the patient record or linkage to other datasets. Results: Based on consensus by surveillance experts across jurisdictions, comprehensive recommendations for data quality in IPAC surveillance programs were developed to improve completeness (22%), accuracy (68%), and timeliness (10%) of the data. Conclusion: The data quality activities list may be used in Canadian IPAC surveillance activities to support or improve existing surveillance data quality activities for IPAC programs.
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.