Cited by 92Electronic Health Records SystemsData Quality and ManagementMedical Coding and Health Information

Assessing the practice of data quality evaluation in a national clinical data research network through a systematic scoping review in the era of real-world data

Open access
Bian, Jiang, Lyu, Tianchen, Loiacono, Alexander, Viramontes, Tonatiuh Mendoza, Lipori, Gloria, Guo, Yi, Wu, Yonghui, Prosperi, Mattia +4 more·2020·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

Objective: To synthesize data quality (DQ) dimensions and assessment methods of real-world data, especially electronic health records, through a systematic scoping review and to assess the practice of DQ assessment in the national Patient-centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet). Materials and Methods: We started with 3 widely cited DQ literature—2 reviews from Chan et al (2010) and Weiskopf et al (2013a) and 1 DQ framework from Kahn et al (2016)—and expanded our review systematically to cover relevant articles published up to February 2020. We extracted DQ dimensions and assessment methods from these studies, mapped their relationships, and organized a synthesized summarization of existing DQ dimensions and assessment methods. We reviewed the data checks employed by the PCORnet and mapped them to the synthesized DQ dimensions and methods. Results: We analyzed a total of 3 reviews, 20 DQ frameworks, and 226 DQ studies and extracted 14 DQ dimensions and 10 assessment methods. We found that completeness, concordance, and correctness/accuracy were commonly assessed. Element presence, validity check, and conformance were commonly used DQ assessment methods and were the main focuses of the PCORnet data checks. Discussion: Definitions of DQ dimensions and methods were not consistent in the literature, and the DQ assessment practice was not evenly distributed (eg, usability and ease-of-use were rarely discussed). Challenges in DQ assessments, given the complex and heterogeneous nature of real-world data, exist. Conclusion: The practice of DQ assessment is still limited in scope. Future work is warranted to generate understandable, executable, and reusable DQ measures.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/jamia/ocaa245

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Distribution drift is a prominent research topic, and its unconscious discarding underlines its importance for medical applications.

    “Therefore, it is a prominent research topic145 and the unconsciousness furthermore underlines the importance of distribution drift for medical applications93.”

    From The METRIC-framework for assessing data quality for trustworthy AI in medicine: A systematic review (2024) · cites this paper as [93]

    The Discussion describes clinical-data errors arising when partners neglect units of measurement and says rigorous data-quality assessment is critical to identify them. This supports the importance of detecting overlooked problems in medical data, but the paper does not identify those problems as distribution drift or discuss its unconscious discarding. The separate assertion that drift is a prominent research topic carries a different citation. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. [1]Collins FS, Hudson KL, Briggs JP, Lauer MS. PCORnet: turning a dream into reality. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2014; 21 (4): 576– 7. 24821744 PMC4078299
  2. [2]Corley DA, Feigelson HS, Lieu TA, McGlynn EA. Building data infrastructure to evaluate and improve quality: PCORnet. J Oncol Pract 2015; 11 (3): 204– 6. 25980016 PMC4438109
  3. [4]Shenkman E, Hurt M, Hogan W, et al OneFlorida Clinical Research Consortium: linking a clinical and translational science institute with a community-based distributive medical education model. Acad Med 2018; 93 (3): 451– 5. 29045273 PMC5839715
  4. [7]Sherman RE, Anderson SA, Dal Pan GJ, et al Real-world evidence—what is it and what can it tell us? N Engl J Med 2016; 375 (23): 2293– 7. 27959688
  5. [8]Olsen L, Aisner D, McGinnis JM, Institute of Medicine (U.S.), eds. The Learning Healthcare System: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2007. 21452449
  6. [9]Budrionis A, Bellika JG. The learning healthcare system: where are we now? A systematic review. J Biomed Inform 2016; 64: 87– 92. 27693565
  7. [10]Sox HC. Comparative effectiveness research: a report from the Institute of Medicine. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151 (3): 203. 19567618
  8. [11]Ford I, Norrie J. Pragmatic trials. N Engl J Med 2016; 375 (5): 454– 63. 27518663
  9. [12]Botsis T, Hartvigsen G, Chen F, Weng C. Secondary use of EHR: data quality issues and informatics opportunities. Summit Transl Bioinform 2010; 2010: 1– 5. PMC3041534 21347133
  10. [13]Bae CJ, Griffith S, Fan Y, et al The challenges of data quality evaluation in a joint data warehouse. eGEMs 2015; 3 (1): 12. PMC4537084 26290882
  11. [14]Wang RY, Strong DM. Beyond accuracy: what data quality means to data consumers. J Manag Infn Systems 1996; 12 (4): 5– 33.
  12. [15]McGilvray D. Executing Data Quality Projects: Ten Steps to Quality Data and Trusted Information. MIT Information Quality Industry Symposium 2009. http://mitiq.mit.edu/IQIS/Documents/CDOIQS_200977/Papers/01_02_T1D.pdf Accessed July 21, 2020.
  13. [18]Kahn MG, Raebel MA, Glanz JM, Riedlinger K, Steiner JF. A pragmatic framework for single-site and multisite data quality assessment in electronic health record-based clinical research. Medl Care 2012; 50: S21– 9. PMC3833692 22692254
  14. [20]Weiskopf NG, Hripcsak G, Swaminathan S, Weng C. Defining and measuring completeness of electronic health records for secondary use. J Biomed Inform 2013; 46 (5): 830– 6. 23820016 PMC3810243
  15. [23]Johnson SG, Speedie S, Simon G, Kumar V Westra BL. A Data Quality Ontology for the Secondary Use of EHR Data. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2015; 2015: 1937– 46. PMC4765682 26958293
  16. [24]Garcí A-de-León-Chocano R, Sáez C, Muñoz-Soler V, Garcí A-de-León-González R, García-Gómez JM. Construction of quality-assured infant feeding process of care data repositories: definition and design (Part 1). Comput Biol Med 2015; 67: 95– 103. 26513467
  17. [26]Reimer AP, Milinovich A, Madigan EA. Data quality assessment framework to assess electronic medical record data for use in research. Int J Med Inform 2016; 90: 40– 7. 27103196 PMC4845906
  18. [27]Khare R, Utidjian L, Ruth BJ, et al A longitudinal analysis of data quality in a large pediatric data research network. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2017; 24 (6): 1072– 9. 28398525 PMC6259665
  19. [28]Smith M, Lix LM, Azimaee M, et al Assessing the quality of administrative data for research: a framework from the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2018; 25 (3): 224– 9. 29025002 PMC7651885
  20. [30]Lee K, Weiskopf N, Pathak J. A Framework for Data Quality Assessment in Clinical Research Datasets. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2018; 2017: 1080– 9. PMC5977591 29854176
  21. [31]Feder SL. Data quality in electronic health records research: quality domains and assessment methods. West J Nurs Res 2018; 40 (5): 753– 66. 28322657
  22. [32]Terry AL, Stewart M, Cejic S, et al A basic model for assessing primary health care electronic medical record data quality. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2019; 19 (1): 30. 30755205 PMC6373085
  23. [33]Nordo A, Eisenstein EL, Garza M, Hammond WE, Zozus MN Evaluative outcomes in direct extraction and use of EHR data in clinical trials. Stud Health Technol Inform 2019; 257: 333– 40. 30741219
  24. [34]Bloland P, MacNeil A. Defining & assessing the quality, usability, and utilization of immunization data. BMC Public Health 2019; 19 (1): 19. 30947703 PMC6450010
  25. [35]Henley-Smith S, Boyle D, Gray K. Improving a secondary use health data warehouse: proposing a multi-level data quality framework. eGEMs 2019; 7 (1): 38. 31531384 PMC6676919
  26. [36]Charnock V. Electronic healthcare records and data quality. Health Info Libr J 2019; 36 (1): 91– 5. 30811882
  27. [37]Callahan TJ, Bauck AE, Bertoch D, et al A comparison of data quality assessment checks in six data sharing networks. eGEMs 2017; 5 (1): 8. PMC5982846 29881733
  28. [38]Qualls LG, Phillips TA, Hammill BG, et al Evaluating foundational data quality in the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet). eGEMs 2018; 6 (1): 3 29881761 PMC5983028
  29. [40]Strong DM, Lee YW, Wang RY. Data quality in context. Commun ACM 1997; 40 (5): 103– 10.
  30. [42]Kahn MG, Brown JS, Chun AT, et al Transparent reporting of data quality in distributed data networks. eGEMs 2015; 3 (1): 7. PMC4434997 25992385

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bian, J., Lyu, T., Loiacono, A., Viramontes, T. M., Lipori, G., Guo, Y., Wu, Y., Prosperi, M., George, T. J., Harle, C. A., Shenkman, E. A., & Hogan, W.
Affiliations
  • University of Florida Health (US)
  • Department of Health Outcomes and Biomedical Informatics, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA
  • University of Florida (US)
Corresponding author
Bian, Jiang
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
2020-11-09
Volume
27
Issue
12
Pages
1999-2010
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W3105812826
Cited by
92
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 5
FWCI
1.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Florida’s Creating the Healthiest Generation—Moonshot
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR001427, R01CA246418, R21AG068717)
  • Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI ME-2018C3-14754)
  • OneFlorida Clinical Research Consortium (CDRN-1501-26692)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Data Quality and Management
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
Keywords
data quality assessment, real-world data, electronic health records, data quality dimensions, completeness, concordance, validity testing, conformance, PCORnet, data quality metrics
MeSH terms
Data Accuracy, Humans, Information Systems, Biomedical Research, Electronic Health Records

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