ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2026
Beyond Missingness: Systematizing Methods for Comprehensive Data Fitness Assessment in Clinical Research.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Unlabelled: Secondary use of clinical data offers unprecedented opportunities to rapidly conduct large-scale research and improve patient care. However, incomplete understanding of data quality requirements for a study often causes significant delays in executing analyses and validating results. Current practice has largely followed 2 paths. First, multi-institutional networks have developed general data quality programs, but these are typically tied to unique network characteristics and do not address study-specific requirements well. Second, models have been proposed to formalize the requirements for data fitness analyses without extending to the methods needed to meet these requirements. More recently, tools have been developed to conduct cohort-centric screening, focusing on generally applicable structural checks such as missingness or facial implausibility. These provide a first level of information but incompletely capture the fitness requirements of an analysis. In turn, investigators conduct per-study exploratory analyses, but these efforts are typically ad hoc and partially reported, which can hinder reproducible science and delay advances in patient care. Analogously to advances over the past decade in data modeling and reproducible analytics, there is a need for a more systematic, capable approach to study-specific data quality assessment (SSDQA). We discuss such a model, which guides improved SSDQA design and implementation, including metadata for consistent annotation and reporting of data quality assessment results. The model integrates theoretical principles of data quality testing with pragmatic considerations of application to clinical data, providing a consistent approach to specifying data quality assessment checks. Additionally, it proposes to regularize check application through a standard set of options. The SSDQA model builds on current practice, providing a path toward more complete, sound, and reproducible assessments. These characteristics foster multidisciplinary collaboration to identify data quality issues that, in turn, inform decisions about study design and provide important context that has a bearing on adoption of results.
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.