A Comparison of Data Quality Assessment Checks in Six Data Sharing Networks
Objective: To compare rule-based data quality (DQ) assessment approaches across multiple national clinical data sharing organizations.Methods: Six organizations with established data quality assessment (DQA) programs provided documentation or source code describing current DQ checks. DQ checks were...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | EGEMS (Washington, DC) DC), 2017-06, Vol.5 (1), p.8-8 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 8 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 8 |
container_title | EGEMS (Washington, DC) |
container_volume | 5 |
creator | Callahan, Tiffany J. Bauck, Alan E. Bertoch, David Brown, Jeff Khare, Ritu Ryan, Patrick B. Staab, Jenny Zozus, Meredith N. Kahn, Michael G. |
description | Objective: To compare rule-based data quality (DQ) assessment approaches across
multiple national clinical data sharing organizations.Methods: Six organizations with
established data quality assessment (DQA) programs provided documentation or source code
describing current DQ checks. DQ checks were mapped to the categories within the data
verification context of the harmonized DQA terminology. To ensure all DQ checks were
consistently mapped, conventions were developed and four iterations of mapping
performed. Difficult-to-map DQ checks were discussed with research team members until
consensus was achieved.Results: Participating organizations provided 11,026 DQ checks,
of which 99.97 percent were successfully mapped to a DQA category. Of the mapped DQ
checks (N=11,023), 214 (1.94 percent) mapped to multiple DQA categories. The majority of
DQ checks mapped to Atemporal Plausibility (49.60 percent), Value Conformance (17.84
percent), and Atemporal Completeness (12.98 percent) categories.Discussion: Using the
common DQA terminology, near-complete (99.97 percent) coverage across a wide range of
DQA programs and specifications was reached. Comparing the distributions of mapped DQ
checks revealed important differences between participating organizations. This
variation may be related to the organization’s stakeholder requirements, primary
analytical focus, or maturity of their DQA program. Not within scope, mapping checks
within the data validation context of the terminology may provide additional insights
into DQA practice differences.Conclusion: A common DQA terminology provides a means to
help organizations and researchers understand the coverage of their current DQA efforts
as well as highlight potential areas for additional DQA development. Sharing DQ checks
between organizations could help expand the scope of DQA across clinical data
networks. |
doi_str_mv | 10.5334/egems.223 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5982846</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2052807318</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1973-ec0bbd13959af6b99fe8c6bb09f1897fdd6652a3964b38b62eb799fa614452753</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpVkMtOwzAQRS0EolXpgj_wEhYtfiR-bJCq8BQVCBXWlp04rWkSFzsB-vcEihCsZqQ5c2d0ADjGaJpSmpzZpa3jlBC6B4aEEj6RBCf7f_oBGMf4ghDCiCYI80MwIFIIzCkdgrsZzHy90cFF30BfwgvdavjY6cq1WziL0cZY26aF2crm6whdAxfuY0ctVv1as4T3tn33YR2PwEGpq2jHP3UEnq8un7Kbyfzh-jabzSc5lpxObI6MKTCVqdQlM1KWVuTMGCRLLCQvi4KxlGgqWWKoMIxYw3tIM5wkKeEpHYHzXe6mM7Ut8v69oCu1Ca7WYau8dur_pHErtfRvKpWCiIT1ASc_AcG_dja2qnYxt1WlG-u7qAhKiUCcYtGjpzs0Dz7GYMvfMxipL__q27_q_dNPT6l3ZQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2052807318</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A Comparison of Data Quality Assessment Checks in Six Data Sharing Networks</title><source>Ubiquity Partner Network - Journals</source><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Callahan, Tiffany J. ; Bauck, Alan E. ; Bertoch, David ; Brown, Jeff ; Khare, Ritu ; Ryan, Patrick B. ; Staab, Jenny ; Zozus, Meredith N. ; Kahn, Michael G.</creator><creatorcontrib>Callahan, Tiffany J. ; Bauck, Alan E. ; Bertoch, David ; Brown, Jeff ; Khare, Ritu ; Ryan, Patrick B. ; Staab, Jenny ; Zozus, Meredith N. ; Kahn, Michael G.</creatorcontrib><description>Objective: To compare rule-based data quality (DQ) assessment approaches across
multiple national clinical data sharing organizations.Methods: Six organizations with
established data quality assessment (DQA) programs provided documentation or source code
describing current DQ checks. DQ checks were mapped to the categories within the data
verification context of the harmonized DQA terminology. To ensure all DQ checks were
consistently mapped, conventions were developed and four iterations of mapping
performed. Difficult-to-map DQ checks were discussed with research team members until
consensus was achieved.Results: Participating organizations provided 11,026 DQ checks,
of which 99.97 percent were successfully mapped to a DQA category. Of the mapped DQ
checks (N=11,023), 214 (1.94 percent) mapped to multiple DQA categories. The majority of
DQ checks mapped to Atemporal Plausibility (49.60 percent), Value Conformance (17.84
percent), and Atemporal Completeness (12.98 percent) categories.Discussion: Using the
common DQA terminology, near-complete (99.97 percent) coverage across a wide range of
DQA programs and specifications was reached. Comparing the distributions of mapped DQ
checks revealed important differences between participating organizations. This
variation may be related to the organization’s stakeholder requirements, primary
analytical focus, or maturity of their DQA program. Not within scope, mapping checks
within the data validation context of the terminology may provide additional insights
into DQA practice differences.Conclusion: A common DQA terminology provides a means to
help organizations and researchers understand the coverage of their current DQA efforts
as well as highlight potential areas for additional DQA development. Sharing DQ checks
between organizations could help expand the scope of DQA across clinical data
networks.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2327-9214</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2327-9214</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.5334/egems.223</identifier><identifier>PMID: 29881733</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Ubiquity Press</publisher><ispartof>EGEMS (Washington, DC), 2017-06, Vol.5 (1), p.8-8</ispartof><rights>Copyright: © 2018 The Author(s) 2018</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1973-ec0bbd13959af6b99fe8c6bb09f1897fdd6652a3964b38b62eb799fa614452753</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5982846/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5982846/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,27924,27925,53791,53793</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Callahan, Tiffany J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bauck, Alan E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bertoch, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brown, Jeff</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Khare, Ritu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ryan, Patrick B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Staab, Jenny</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zozus, Meredith N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kahn, Michael G.</creatorcontrib><title>A Comparison of Data Quality Assessment Checks in Six Data Sharing Networks</title><title>EGEMS (Washington, DC)</title><description>Objective: To compare rule-based data quality (DQ) assessment approaches across
multiple national clinical data sharing organizations.Methods: Six organizations with
established data quality assessment (DQA) programs provided documentation or source code
describing current DQ checks. DQ checks were mapped to the categories within the data
verification context of the harmonized DQA terminology. To ensure all DQ checks were
consistently mapped, conventions were developed and four iterations of mapping
performed. Difficult-to-map DQ checks were discussed with research team members until
consensus was achieved.Results: Participating organizations provided 11,026 DQ checks,
of which 99.97 percent were successfully mapped to a DQA category. Of the mapped DQ
checks (N=11,023), 214 (1.94 percent) mapped to multiple DQA categories. The majority of
DQ checks mapped to Atemporal Plausibility (49.60 percent), Value Conformance (17.84
percent), and Atemporal Completeness (12.98 percent) categories.Discussion: Using the
common DQA terminology, near-complete (99.97 percent) coverage across a wide range of
DQA programs and specifications was reached. Comparing the distributions of mapped DQ
checks revealed important differences between participating organizations. This
variation may be related to the organization’s stakeholder requirements, primary
analytical focus, or maturity of their DQA program. Not within scope, mapping checks
within the data validation context of the terminology may provide additional insights
into DQA practice differences.Conclusion: A common DQA terminology provides a means to
help organizations and researchers understand the coverage of their current DQA efforts
as well as highlight potential areas for additional DQA development. Sharing DQ checks
between organizations could help expand the scope of DQA across clinical data
networks.</description><issn>2327-9214</issn><issn>2327-9214</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpVkMtOwzAQRS0EolXpgj_wEhYtfiR-bJCq8BQVCBXWlp04rWkSFzsB-vcEihCsZqQ5c2d0ADjGaJpSmpzZpa3jlBC6B4aEEj6RBCf7f_oBGMf4ghDCiCYI80MwIFIIzCkdgrsZzHy90cFF30BfwgvdavjY6cq1WziL0cZY26aF2crm6whdAxfuY0ctVv1as4T3tn33YR2PwEGpq2jHP3UEnq8un7Kbyfzh-jabzSc5lpxObI6MKTCVqdQlM1KWVuTMGCRLLCQvi4KxlGgqWWKoMIxYw3tIM5wkKeEpHYHzXe6mM7Ut8v69oCu1Ca7WYau8dur_pHErtfRvKpWCiIT1ASc_AcG_dja2qnYxt1WlG-u7qAhKiUCcYtGjpzs0Dz7GYMvfMxipL__q27_q_dNPT6l3ZQ</recordid><startdate>20170612</startdate><enddate>20170612</enddate><creator>Callahan, Tiffany J.</creator><creator>Bauck, Alan E.</creator><creator>Bertoch, David</creator><creator>Brown, Jeff</creator><creator>Khare, Ritu</creator><creator>Ryan, Patrick B.</creator><creator>Staab, Jenny</creator><creator>Zozus, Meredith N.</creator><creator>Kahn, Michael G.</creator><general>Ubiquity Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20170612</creationdate><title>A Comparison of Data Quality Assessment Checks in Six Data Sharing Networks</title><author>Callahan, Tiffany J. ; Bauck, Alan E. ; Bertoch, David ; Brown, Jeff ; Khare, Ritu ; Ryan, Patrick B. ; Staab, Jenny ; Zozus, Meredith N. ; Kahn, Michael G.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1973-ec0bbd13959af6b99fe8c6bb09f1897fdd6652a3964b38b62eb799fa614452753</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Callahan, Tiffany J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bauck, Alan E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bertoch, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brown, Jeff</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Khare, Ritu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ryan, Patrick B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Staab, Jenny</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zozus, Meredith N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kahn, Michael G.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>EGEMS (Washington, DC)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Callahan, Tiffany J.</au><au>Bauck, Alan E.</au><au>Bertoch, David</au><au>Brown, Jeff</au><au>Khare, Ritu</au><au>Ryan, Patrick B.</au><au>Staab, Jenny</au><au>Zozus, Meredith N.</au><au>Kahn, Michael G.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A Comparison of Data Quality Assessment Checks in Six Data Sharing Networks</atitle><jtitle>EGEMS (Washington, DC)</jtitle><date>2017-06-12</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>5</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>8</spage><epage>8</epage><pages>8-8</pages><issn>2327-9214</issn><eissn>2327-9214</eissn><abstract>Objective: To compare rule-based data quality (DQ) assessment approaches across
multiple national clinical data sharing organizations.Methods: Six organizations with
established data quality assessment (DQA) programs provided documentation or source code
describing current DQ checks. DQ checks were mapped to the categories within the data
verification context of the harmonized DQA terminology. To ensure all DQ checks were
consistently mapped, conventions were developed and four iterations of mapping
performed. Difficult-to-map DQ checks were discussed with research team members until
consensus was achieved.Results: Participating organizations provided 11,026 DQ checks,
of which 99.97 percent were successfully mapped to a DQA category. Of the mapped DQ
checks (N=11,023), 214 (1.94 percent) mapped to multiple DQA categories. The majority of
DQ checks mapped to Atemporal Plausibility (49.60 percent), Value Conformance (17.84
percent), and Atemporal Completeness (12.98 percent) categories.Discussion: Using the
common DQA terminology, near-complete (99.97 percent) coverage across a wide range of
DQA programs and specifications was reached. Comparing the distributions of mapped DQ
checks revealed important differences between participating organizations. This
variation may be related to the organization’s stakeholder requirements, primary
analytical focus, or maturity of their DQA program. Not within scope, mapping checks
within the data validation context of the terminology may provide additional insights
into DQA practice differences.Conclusion: A common DQA terminology provides a means to
help organizations and researchers understand the coverage of their current DQA efforts
as well as highlight potential areas for additional DQA development. Sharing DQ checks
between organizations could help expand the scope of DQA across clinical data
networks.</abstract><pub>Ubiquity Press</pub><pmid>29881733</pmid><doi>10.5334/egems.223</doi><tpages>1</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2327-9214 |
ispartof | EGEMS (Washington, DC), 2017-06, Vol.5 (1), p.8-8 |
issn | 2327-9214 2327-9214 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5982846 |
source | Ubiquity Partner Network - Journals; PubMed Central Open Access; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central |
title | A Comparison of Data Quality Assessment Checks in Six Data Sharing Networks |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-24T14%3A35%3A26IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20Comparison%20of%20Data%20Quality%20Assessment%20Checks%20in%20Six%20Data%20Sharing%20Networks&rft.jtitle=EGEMS%20(Washington,%20DC)&rft.au=Callahan,%20Tiffany%20J.&rft.date=2017-06-12&rft.volume=5&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=8&rft.epage=8&rft.pages=8-8&rft.issn=2327-9214&rft.eissn=2327-9214&rft_id=info:doi/10.5334/egems.223&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2052807318%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2052807318&rft_id=info:pmid/29881733&rfr_iscdi=true |