Cited by 10Survey Methodology and NonresponseSpinal Cord Injury ResearchHealth disparities and outcomes

Racial differences in data quality and completeness: spinal cord injury model systems’ experiences

Open access
Chen, Yuying, Lin, Hui-Yi, Tseng, Tung-Sung, Wen, Huacong, DeVivo, Michael J.·2018·Topics in Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation

Abstract

Background: Among people with spinal cord injury (SCI), minorities experience a disproportionately higher burden of diseases. Knowledge of data quality by race/ethnicity will help better design racial health disparity research and understand potential errors/biases. Objective: To investigate racial/ethnic differences in response completeness in a longitudinal SCI database. Methods: This study included 7,507 participants (5,483 non-Hispanic whites, 1,414 non-Hispanic blacks, and 610 Hispanics) enrolled in the National SCI Database who returned for follow-up between 2001 and 2006 and were aged ≥18 years at follow-up. Missing data were defined as any missing, unknown, or refusal response to interview items. Results: The overall missing rate was 29.7%, 9.5%, 9.7%, 10.7%, 12.0%, and 9.8% for the Craig Handicap Assessment and Reporting Technique-Short Form (CHART) economic self-sufficiency subscale, CAGE questionnaire, drug use, Diener's Satisfaction with Life Scale, Patient Health Questionnaire, and pain severity, respectively. The missing rate for the CHART measure was significantly higher among non-Hispanic blacks and Hispanics than among non-Hispanic whites, after controlling for demographics, injury factors, mode of data collection, and study sites. The missing data in the other outcome measures examined were also significantly higher among non-Hispanic blacks than among non-Hispanic whites but were not significantly different between Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites. Conclusion: Our study highlights the importance of research methodology designed to improve non-response or response incompleteness, particularly in non-Hispanic blacks, as we move to reduce racial/ethnic disparities and strive to explain how and why disparities occur in the SCI population.

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 · 10.1310/sci2402-110

Cites

30 of 30 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?

  • Ten of these (66%) identified that the incomplete data led to validity issues, most commonly that these data were not missing at random and had the potential to introduce bias.

    “Ten of these (66%) identified that the incomplete data led to validity issues, most commonly that these data were not missing at random and had the potential to introduced bias.12,34,43–50”

    From The quality of social determinants data in the electronic health record: a systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as [48]

    The Abstract says racial variation in data quality could introduce bias into spinal cord injury health-disparity research, and the Conclusion calls for further study of whether non-response bias affects that research. The paper does not establish that the data were missing not at random. The ‘ten of these (66%)’ count is the citing authors’ synthesis, not a result reported by this source. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    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

1 of the 31 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chen, Y., Lin, H.-Y., Tseng, T.-S., Wen, H., & DeVivo, M. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Alabama at Birmingham (US)
  • Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center New Orleans (US)
Corresponding author
Chen, Yuying
Venue
Topics in Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation
Published
2018-03
Volume
24
Issue
2
Pages
110-120
ISSN
1082-0744 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2800499454
Cited by
10
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1
FWCI
0.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Topics in Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
  • Australian Government
  • Administration for Community Living
  • National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (90DP0083)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Spinal Cord Injury Research
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
Keywords
spinal cord injury, racial disparities, response completeness, missing data, data quality, non-Hispanic blacks, Hispanic Americans, health disparities, patient-reported outcomes
MeSH terms
Adult, Data Collection, Disability Evaluation, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Health Status, Hispanic or Latino, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Minority Groups, Pain, Socioeconomic Factors, Spinal Cord Injuries, Bias, Databases, Factual, Black People, White People, Health Status Disparities, Lost to Follow-Up

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