Back

Combining centralized and decentralized approaches to assess and ensure data quality in Eurocrine(R) via Microsoft Power BI and DataquieR

Musholt, T. J.; Clerici, T.; Bergenfelz, A.; Schmidt, C. O.; Struckmann, S.

2026-06-05 health informatics
10.64898/2026.06.04.26354884 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: Medical registries have gained importance in the evaluation of healthcare quality outcomes. In the absence of high-quality evidence, such as randomized controlled trials, studies based on registry data are essential for informing clinical guidelines. Methods for assessing data quality are rarely described in detail. To ensure the credibility of registry-based studies, registries must use all available technical and operational means to guarantee high data quality. Method: Eurocrine(R) is a pan-European endocrine surgical database and quality registry initially funded by the EU healthcare programme, which started in 2015 and now includes more than 200,000 interventions as of April 2025. To ensure high data quality, interactive and standardized reports are created via Microsoft Power BI, which are created both centrally and locally. In addition, comprehensive data quality analyses were performed via the R-based package dataquieR. Results: Although a multitude of technical measures (for example, input screen design and real-time plausibility checks during data entry) are in place, they are not sufficient to prevent human errors at data entry. Errors identified in the reports were corrected, and preventive measures were implemented. Overall, the data quality was assessed as very good in terms of completeness, accuracy, and consistency. Conclusion: It is very important to provide registry users with an efficient and smart tool to identify data issues, as they have the clinical information to correct them. Data quality reports generated with dataquieR represent an effective tool for registry administrators. Predesigned Microsoft Power BI reports enable participating Eurocrine(R) clinics to self-audit their data.

Matching journals

The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
JAMIA Open
37 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.8%
2
BMC Medical Research Methodology
43 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.0%
3
JMIR Medical Informatics
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.2%
4
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
6.1%
5
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 29%
6.1%
6
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 4%
6.1%
7
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
4.7%
8
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.9%
9
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.5%
50% of probability mass above
10
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.7%
11
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 44%
2.7%
12
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.5%
13
JMIR Research Protocols
18 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.0%
14
DIGITAL HEALTH
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.0%
15
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.8%
16
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
17
Scientific Data
174 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.6%
18
International Journal of Medical Informatics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.6%
19
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.6%
20
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
27 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.4%
21
Clinical and Translational Science
21 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.3%
22
Frontiers in Digital Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.3%
23
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.2%
24
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
18 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
25
Informatics in Medicine Unlocked
21 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.9%
26
Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
13 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
27
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
28
JMIR Formative Research
32 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
29
Journal of Personalized Medicine
28 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
30
Cancer Medicine
24 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%