The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Methods of Information in Medicine
Open accessAbstract
Background Multisite research networks such as the project "Collaboration on Rare Diseases" connect various hospitals to obtain sufficient data for clinical research.However, data quality (DQ) remains a challenge for the secondary use of data recorded in different health information systems.High levels of DQ as well as appropriate quality assessment methods are needed to support the reuse of such distributed data.Objectives The aim of this work is the development of an interoperable methodology for assessing the quality of data recorded in heterogeneous sources to improve the quality of rare disease (RD) documentation and support clinical research.Methods We first developed a conceptual framework for DQ assessment.Using this theoretical guidance, we implemented a software framework that provides appropriate tools for calculating DQ metrics and for generating local as well as crossinstitutional reports.We further applied our methodology on synthetic data distributed across multiple hospitals using Personal Health Train.Finally, we used precision and recall as metrics to validate our implementation.Results Four DQ dimensions were defined and represented as disjunct ontological categories.Based on these top dimensions, 9 DQ concepts, 10 DQ indicators, and 25 DQ parameters were developed and applied to different data sets.Randomly introduced DQ issues were all identified and reported automatically.The generated reports show the resulting DQ indicators and detected DQ issues.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Weiskopf, N. G., & Weng, C. (2013) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000681 · Cited by 1,216
Kahn, M. G., Callahan, T. J., Barnard, J., Bauck, A. E., Brown, J., Davidson, B. N., Estiri, H., Goerg, C., Holve, E., Johnson, S. G., et al. (2016) · eGEMs (Generating Evidence & Methods to improve patient outcomes) · doi:10.13063/2327-9214.1244 · Cited by 697
Secure Multi-Party Computation: Theory, practice and applications
Zhao, C., Zhao, S., Zhao, M., Chen, Z., Gao, C.-Z., Li, H., & Tan, Y.-A. (2019) · Information Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.ins.2018.10.024 · Cited by 508
Iyen-Omofoman, B., Hubbard, R. B., Smith, C. J., Sparks, E., Bradley, E., Bourke, A., & Tata, L. J. (2011) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/1471-2458-11-857 · Cited by 44
Cited by
When Conversation Is Better Than Computation
Coiera, E. (2000) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1136/jamia.2000.0070277 · Cited by 444
“Smart Homes” for Patients at the End of Life
Demiris, G., & Hensel, B. (2009) · Journal of Housing For the Elderly · doi:10.1080/02763890802665049 · Cited by 80
Lyon, A. R., Wasse, J. K., Ludwig, K., Zachry, M., Bruns, E. J., Unützer, J., & McCauley, E. (2016) · Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research · doi:10.1007/s10488-015-0637-x · Cited by 63
Ravi, N., Chaturvedi, P., Huerta, E. A., Liu, Z., Chard, R., Scourtas, A., Schmidt, K. J., Chard, K., Blaiszik, B., & Foster, I. (2022) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/s41597-022-01712-9 · Cited by 51
Metadata
- Venue
- Methods of Information in Medicine
- Publisher
- Georg Thieme Verlag KG
- Published
- 1988-01
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- S 01
- Pages
- 01-373
- ISSN
- 0026-1270 (ISSN-L)
- 2511-705X
- OpenAlex
- W4247376166
- Cited by
- 238
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 14.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Methods of Information in Medicine. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1055/s-0038-1636640
- The paper
- Methods of Information in Medicine. (1988). Methods of Information in Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1636640
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.