ArticleJAMIA open2026
Understanding data differences across the ENACT federated research network.
Article in JAMIA open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond Missingness: Systematizing Methods for Comprehensive Data Fitness Assessment in Clinical Research.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Lessons from federated networks for implementing the European health data space. Empirical study.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Federated research networks, like Evolve to Next-Gen Accrual of patients to Clinical Trials (ENACT), aim to facilitate medical research by exchanging electronic health record (EHR) data. However, poor data quality can hinder this goal. While networks typically set guidelines and standards to address this problem, we developed an organically evolving, data-centric method using patient counts to identify data quality issues, applicable even to sites not yet in the network. Materials and Methods: We distribute high-performance patient counting scripts as part of Integrating Biology at the Bedside (i2b2), which all ENACT sites operate. They produce counts of patients associated with ENACT ontology terms for each site. At the ENACT Hub, our pipeline aggregates site-contributed counts to produce network statistics, which our self-service web application, Data Quality Explorer (DQE), ingests to help sites conduct data quality investigation relative to the network. Results: Thirteen ENACT sites have contributed their patient counts, and currently ten sites have signed up to use DQE to analyze data quality issues. We announced a call to all ENACT sites to contribute additional patient counts. Discussion: Identifying site data quality problems relative to the network is novel. Using a metric based on evolving network statistics complements rigid data quality checks. It is adaptable to any network and has low barriers of entry, with patient counting being the sole requirement. Conclusion: We implemented a metric for conducting data quality investigation in ENACT using patient counting and network statistics. Our end-to-end pipeline is privacy-preserving and the underlying design is generalizable.
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.