Data Quality in Health Care: Main Concepts and Assessment Methodologies
Abstract
Introduction In the health care environment, a huge volume of data is produced on a daily basis. However, the processes of collecting, storing, sharing, analyzing, and reporting health data usually face with numerous challenges that lead to producing incomplete, inaccurate, and untimely data. As a result, data quality issues have received more attention than before. Objective The purpose of this article is to provide an insight into the data quality definitions, dimensions, and assessment methodologies. Methods In this article, a scoping literature review approach was used to describe and summarize the main concepts related to data quality and data quality assessment methodologies. Search terms were selected to find the relevant articles published between January 1, 2012 and September 31, 2022. The retrieved articles were then reviewed and the results were reported narratively. Results In total, 23 papers were included in the study. According to the results, data quality dimensions were various and different methodologies were used to assess them. Most studies used quantitative methods to measure data quality dimensions either in paper-based or computer-based medical records. Only two studies investigated respondents' opinions about data quality. Conclusion In health care, high-quality data not only are important for patient care, but also are vital for improving quality of health care services and better decision making. Therefore, using technical and nontechnical solutions as well as constant assessment and supervision is suggested to improve data quality.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In healthcare, outdated records can compromise patient safety.
“In healthcare, outdated records can compromise patient safety [46-49].”
From Data Quality in the Age of AI: A Review of Governance, Ethics, and the FAIR Principles (2025) · cites this paper as [48]
Cites
PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation
Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D. J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., et al. (2018) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m18-0850 · Cited by 43,565 · see citing works
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 636 · see citing works
A Data Quality Assessment Guideline for Electronic Health Record Data Reuse
Weiskopf, N. G., Bakken, S., Hripcsak, G., & Weng, C. (2017) · eGEMs (Generating Evidence & Methods to improve patient outcomes) · doi:10.5334/egems.218 · Cited by 152 · see citing works
The impact of routine data quality assessments on electronic medical record data quality in Kenya
Muthee, V., Bochner, A. F., Osterman, A., Liku, N., Akhwale, W., Kwach, J., Prachi, M., Wamicwe, J., Odhiambo, J., Onyango, F., et al. (2018) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0195362 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
A Survey of Data Quality Measurement and Monitoring Tools
Ehrlinger, L., & Wöß, W. (2022) · Frontiers in Big Data · doi:10.3389/fdata.2022.850611 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The METRIC-framework for assessing data quality for trustworthy AI in medicine: A systematic review
Schwabe, D., Becker, K., Seyferth, M., Klaß, A., & Schaeffter, T. (2024) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-024-01196-4 · Cited by 169 · see citing works
A Framework for Current and New Data Quality Dimensions: An Overview
Miller, R., Whelan, H., Chrubasik, M., Whittaker, D., Duncan, P., & Gregório, J. (2024) · Data · doi:10.3390/data9120151 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Data Quality in the Age of AI: A Review of Governance, Ethics, and the FAIR Principles
Guillen-Aguinaga, M., Aguinaga-Ontoso, E., Guillen-Aguinaga, L., Guillen-Grima, F., & Aguinaga-Ontoso, I. (2025) · Data · doi:10.3390/data10120201 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
- Authors
- Mashoufi, M., Ayatollahi, H., Khorasani-Zavareh, D., & Talebi Azad Boni, T.
- Affiliations
- Ardabil University of Medical Sciences (IR)
- Iran University of Medical Sciences (IR)
- Department of Health in Emergencies and Disasters, Safety Promotion and Injury Prevention Research Center, School of Public Health and Safety, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
- Department of Health Information Management, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
- Corresponding author
- Ayatollahi, Haleh
- Venue
- Methods of Information in Medicine
- Publisher
- Georg Thieme Verlag KG
- Published
- 2023-01-30
- Volume
- 62
- Issue
- 01/02
- Pages
- 005-018
- ISSN
- 0026-1270 (ISSN-L)
- 2511-705X
- OpenAlex
- W4318574514
- Cited by
- 32
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 8
- FWCI
- 7.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Methods of Information in Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Data Quality and Management
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Keywords
- data quality, health data, data quality dimensions, data quality assessment, health records, electronic health records, medical records, data accuracy, data completeness, health data management
- MeSH terms
- Data Accuracy, Delivery of Health Care, Humans
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