Measuring the Quality of Datasets: Development of the IDEFIM Indicator Set for Empirical Health Research

Background: To be beneficial for empirical health research, a dataset must be fit for use. The quality of a dataset can only be influenced during data collection, yet it is evaluated multiple times during analysis or secondary use by applying quality indicators. Objective: This study aimed to establish an up-to-date set of indicators measuring the quality of datasets in empirical health research. Methods: A total of 3 pillars were combined. First, the 51 indicators of a German guideline from 2014 about the management of data quality were revised. Second, a literature review was performed looking for evidence sources since 2013 that describe, propose, or apply dataset quality indicators. Third, indicators were supplemented by a manual search and other sources. The quality indicators were then integrated into the IDEFIM framework. The IDEFIM framework distinguishes between the categories' data, metadata, context, and openness quality. In this work, only the categories data and metadata quality, with their 14 dimensions were considered. Results: In total, 69 indicators qualified for the IDEFIM indicator set, 53 related to the category data quality, and 16 to the category metadata quality. A total of 30 indicators originated from the German guideline, 31 from the literature review. Three indicators were added to cover aspects of diversity, equity, and inclusion, and an additional 5 related to specifics of data and metadata quality not addressed so far. Most indicators were found in the dimensions accuracy (data) with 12 measures, completeness (data) with 12 measures, and consistency (data) with 19 measures. According to the number of supporting evidence sources, missing values in data elements (48 evidence sources), contradictions (31), and currentness (26) were the most popular quality indicators. Metadata quality was significantly less frequently addressed. Conclusions: The presented IDEFIM indicator set can be used for the management of data collections as well as for the verification of a dataset's quality for an intended use. The indicator set should also be considered in the design of a study in empirical health research and the development of software tools supporting the visualization of issues related to the quality of a dataset.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2026-06-17
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2196/90482
Primary Topic
Research Data Management Practices
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Measuring the Quality of Datasets: Development of the IDEFIM Indicator Set for Empirical Health Research

Tobias Hartz, Ekkehart Jenetzky, Stefanie March, Oliver J. Bott et al.
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Research Data Management Practices
article

Measuring the Quality of Datasets: Development of the IDEFIM Indicator Set for Empirical Health Research

Tobias Hartz, Ekkehart Jenetzky, Stefanie March, Oliver J. Bott, Matthias Löbe, Sonja Harkener, Jürgen Stausberg, Christian Draeger, Chris Schubert
article en

Abstract

Background: To be beneficial for empirical health research, a dataset must be fit for use. The quality of a dataset can only be influenced during data collection, yet it is evaluated multiple times during analysis or secondary use by applying quality indicators. Objective: This study aimed to establish an up-to-date set of indicators measuring the quality of datasets in empirical health research. Methods: A total of 3 pillars were combined. First, the 51 indicators of a German guideline from 2014 about the management of data quality were revised. Second, a literature review was performed looking for evidence sources since 2013 that describe, propose, or apply dataset quality indicators. Third, indicators were supplemented by a manual search and other sources. The quality indicators were then integrated into the IDEFIM framework. The IDEFIM framework distinguishes between the categories' data, metadata, context, and openness quality. In this work, only the categories data and metadata quality, with their 14 dimensions were considered. Results: In total, 69 indicators qualified for the IDEFIM indicator set, 53 related to the category data quality, and 16 to the category metadata quality. A total of 30 indicators originated from the German guideline, 31 from the literature review. Three indicators were added to cover aspects of diversity, equity, and inclusion, and an additional 5 related to specifics of data and metadata quality not addressed so far. Most indicators were found in the dimensions accuracy (data) with 12 measures, completeness (data) with 12 measures, and consistency (data) with 19 measures. According to the number of supporting evidence sources, missing values in data elements (48 evidence sources), contradictions (31), and currentness (26) were the most popular quality indicators. Metadata quality was significantly less frequently addressed. Conclusions: The presented IDEFIM indicator set can be used for the management of data collections as well as for the verification of a dataset's quality for an intended use. The indicator set should also be considered in the design of a study in empirical health research and the development of software tools supporting the visualization of issues related to the quality of a dataset.

Journal of Medical Internet ResearchVol. 28
Hochschule Hannover (DE), Witten/Herdecke University (DE), University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation (DE), Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (DE), Austrian National Library (AT), Institut für Medizinische Informatik, Biometrie und Epidemiologie (DE), University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (DE), Hanover University of Music Drama and Media (DE), Hochschule Magdeburg-Stendal (DE), University of Duisburg-Essen (DE), Leipzig University (DE)
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Research Data Management Practices
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.