ArticleEuropean journal of public health2026
Landscape analysis towards data quality and utility labelling in the European Health Data Space.
Article in European journal of public health, 2026. 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.
- CancerWatch: accelerating Europe's cancer intelligence.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The European Health Data Space (EHDS) promotes health data sharing and secondary use across Europe. The QUANTUM project focuses on labelling data quality (DQ), utility, and maturity to support EU-wide standards within this context. This study examines current DQ assessment practices in European Data Holder institutions to inform the design of a labelling tool for the EHDS. The study explored institutional practices for DQ assurance and assessment through a survey of EU-wide Data Holders and a literature search on open-source health DQ tools with potential for labelling. The survey targeted QUANTUM partners and external institutions, addressing DQ practices and tools. The literature review followed PRISMA guidelines and combined PubMed, AI-based queries, and known sources. We obtained survey responses from 27 Institutions across 13 European countries. The results showed a high variety and heterogeneity in DQ practices and tools used, including in-house developed tools, open-source tools, commercial products, and manual procedures. Most practices allowed customization of DQ dimensions and export of DQ analyses. The systematic review identified 66 DQ tools, 53% specific to data types such as electronic health records, omics or imaging, and 47% general-purpose. The diverse DQ institutional practices and tools emphasize the need for an interoperable self-assessment DQ labelling tool that guides the measurement and completion of consolidated metrics aligned with the EHDS regulations. Based on these findings, the QUANTUM project is developing this tool to support DQ labelling of Data Holders' datasets candidate to publication at EU Health Data Access Bodies.
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.