Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
R Packages for Data Quality Assessments and Data Monitoring: A Software Scoping Review with Recommendations for Future Developments
20
Zitationen
5
Autoren
2022
Jahr
Abstract
Data quality assessments (DQA) are necessary to ensure valid research results. Despite the growing availability of tools of relevance for DQA in the R language, a systematic comparison of their functionalities is missing. Therefore, we review R packages related to data quality (DQ) and assess their scope against a DQ framework for observational health studies. Based on a systematic search, we screened more than 140 R packages related to DQA in the Comprehensive R Archive Network. From these, we selected packages which target at least three of the four DQ dimensions (integrity, completeness, consistency, accuracy) in a reference framework. We evaluated the resulting 27 packages for general features (e.g., usability, metadata handling, output types, descriptive statistics) and the possible assessment’s breadth. To facilitate comparisons, we applied all packages to a publicly available dataset from a cohort study. We found that the packages’ scope varies considerably regarding functionalities and usability. Only three packages follow a DQ concept, and some offer an extensive rule-based issue analysis. However, the reference framework does not include a few implemented functionalities, and it should be broadened accordingly. Improved use of metadata to empower DQA and user-friendliness enhancement, such as GUIs and reports that grade the severity of DQ issues, stand out as the main directions for future developments.
Ähnliche Arbeiten
The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
2021 · 88.941 Zit.
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement
2009 · 83.006 Zit.
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
1977 · 77.697 Zit.
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
2009 · 63.339 Zit.
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
2003 · 62.004 Zit.