ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2025
Assessing and improving research readiness in PCORnet®.
Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: We describe the steps taken to assess and improve the research readiness of data within PCORnet®, specifically focusing on the results of the PCORnet data curation process between Cycle 7 (October 2019) and Cycle 16 (October 2024). Material and methods: We describe the process for extending the PCORnet® CDM and for creating data checks. Results: We highlight growth in the number of records available across PCORnet between data curation Cycles 7 and 16 (e.g., diagnoses increasing from ∼3.7B to ∼6.9B and laboratory results from ∼7.7B to ∼15.1B among legacy DataMarts), present the current list of data checks and describe performance of the network. We highlight examples of data checks with relatively stable performance (e.g., future dates), those where performance has improved (e.g., RxNorm mapping), and others performance is more variable (e.g., persistence of records). Conclusion: Studies are a crucial source of information on the design of new data checks. The attention of PCORnet partners is focused primarily on those metrics that are generally modifiable. A transparent data curation process is an essential component of PCORnet, allowing network partners to learn from one another, while also informing the decisions of study investigators on which sites to include in their projects. The quality issues that exist within PCORnet stem from the way that data are captured within healthcare generally. We have been able to make to make great strides on improving data quality and research readiness. Many of the techniques piloted within PCORnet will be broadly applicable to other efforts.
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.