ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2026
Sharing EHR data of patients with rare diseases for research - The role of quality assessments in a national federated research data infrastructure.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo obtain sufficient data for clinical research on Rare Diseases (RDs), the project “Collaboration on Rare Diseases” (CORD-MI) has connected 24 University Medical Centers (UMCs) in Germany. As part of the national Medical Informatics Initiative (MII), which aims at making the EHR data of all German UMCs FAIR and jointly usable for research, CORD-MI extends the methods and tools along the special requirements of RD data. Major challenges are insufficient coding of RDs and the high influence of individual data records on the results due to low cohort sizes. Hence, high data quality (DQ) of each data record is vital and exclusion due to quality issues may lead to insufficient sample sizes. DQ deficiencies induced by a FAIRification process may be corrected retrospectively; therefore their identification is of high relevance for RD research.
methodsWe used a self-developed DQ assessment tool to investigate the impact of the implemented FAIRification processes. Seven normalized DQ indicators – encompassing completeness, uniqueness, and plausibility – were assessed automatically across two datasets created from the same patient information system (PAS) but processed differently: claims data available in a FAIR format by MII standards (FHIR-DS), and a direct export (EXP-DS). The results were independently validated by domain experts, and measures to resolve the DQ issues were investigated. Furthermore, the tool’s FAIRness and computational performance were evaluated.
resultsWe found a higher number of DQ issues in FHIR-DS than in EXP-DS. Specifically, FHIR-DS contained 1988 distinct DQ issues: nine ambiguous RD cases, two missing data items, and 1977 completeness issues induced by the FAIRification processes. We could successfully resolve the majority (68%) of all identified DQ issues in FHIR-DS. The runtime performance could be reduced from 12.52 min to 0.12 min for FHIR-DS by multi-core parallelization. A comparison with current FAIR guidelines of the software showed compliance with 16 of 17 principles.
conclusionCompleteness indicators are crucial for evaluating the quality of RD data, as most identified issues are related to the completeness dimension and largely stem from FAIRification processes. Our findings have shown the efficiency and effectiveness of our methodology in improving the quality and usefulness of FAIR data both retrospectively and prospectively. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.