ArticlePloS one2026
Assessing the FAIRness of survey data collected during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany.
Article in PloS one, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigates the FAIRness (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability) of survey data collected during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. During the pandemic, surveys played a crucial role in capturing public attitudes and health-related behaviors, but researchers often faced a trade-off between rapid data collection and implementing high-quality survey designs. Using metadata from the "Survey Data Collection during the COVID-19 Pandemic" (SDCCP) project, which documents 717 surveys conducted in Germany, we assessed the FAIRness of surveys published with a persistent identifier or project website using the F-UJI assessment tool. Our results show substantial variation in FAIRness scores. Surveys can be divided into two groups, with one group achieving around 88.46% FAIRness and the other averaging around 65.38%. These differences are correlated with survey design. Surveys using fast and cost-efficient designs also exhibit lower FAIRness. The findings highlight that the trade-off between rapid data production and methodological rigor during the pandemic also affected the availability and reusability of survey data.
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.