Data - Quality assessment table

This data table provides the detailed data quality assessment scores for the Technical Limits dataset. The quality assessment was carried out on the 31st of March. At SPEN, we are dedicated to sharing high-quality data with our stakeholders and being transparent about its' quality. This is why we openly share the results of our data quality assessments. We collaborate closely with Data Owners to address any identified issues and enhance our overall data quality. To demonstrate our progress we conduct, at a minimum, bi-annual assessments of our data quality - for datasets that are refreshed more frequently than this, please note that the quality assessment may be based on an earlier version of the dataset. To learn more about our approach to how we assess data quality, visit Data Quality - SP Energy Networks. We welcome feedback and questions from our stakeholders regarding this process. Our Open Data Team is available to answer any enquiries or receive feedback on the assessments. You can contact them via our Open Data mailbox at opendata@spenergynetworks.co.uk.The first phase of our comprehensive data quality assessment measures the quality of our datasets across three dimensions. Please refer to the data table schema for the definitions of these dimensions. We are now in the process of expanding our quality assessments to include additional dimensions to provide a more comprehensive evaluation and will update the data tables with the results when available.

This dataset contains replicate samples collected in the field by community technicians. No field replicates were collected in 2012. Replicate constituents with differences less than 10 percent are considered acceptable.

This data table provides the detailed data quality assessment scores for the Curtailment dataset. The quality assessment was carried out on the 31st of March. At SPEN, we are dedicated to sharing high-quality data with our stakeholders and being transparent about its' quality. This is why we openly share the results of our data quality assessments. We collaborate closely with Data Owners to address any identified issues and enhance our overall data quality. To demonstrate our progress we conduct, at a minimum, bi-annual assessments of our data quality - for datasets that are refreshed more frequently than this, please note that the quality assessment may be based on an earlier version of the dataset. To learn more about our approach to how we assess data quality, visit Data Quality - SP Energy Networks. We welcome feedback and questions from our stakeholders regarding this process. Our Open Data Team is available to answer any enquiries or receive feedback on the assessments. You can contact them via our Open Data mailbox at opendata@spenergynetworks.co.uk.The first phase of our comprehensive data quality assessment measures the quality of our datasets across three dimensions. Please refer to the data table schema for the definitions of these dimensions. We are now in the process of expanding our quality assessments to include additional dimensions to provide a more comprehensive evaluation and will update the data tables with the results when available.

This data table provides the detailed data quality assessment scores for the Transmission Generation Heat Map. The quality assessment was carried out on the 31st of March. At SPEN, we are dedicated to sharing high-quality data with our stakeholders and being transparent about its' quality. This is why we openly share the results of our data quality assessments. We collaborate closely with Data Owners to address any identified issues and enhance our overall data quality. To demonstrate our progress we conduct, at a minimum, bi-annual assessments of our data quality - for datasets that are refreshed more frequently than this, please note that the quality assessment may be based on an earlier version of the dataset. To learn more about our approach to how we assess data quality, visit Data Quality - SP Energy Networks. We welcome feedback and questions from our stakeholders regarding this process. Our Open Data Team is available to answer any enquiries or receive feedback on the assessments. You can contact them via our Open Data mailbox at opendata@spenergynetworks.co.uk.The first phase of our comprehensive data quality assessment measures the quality of our datasets across three dimensions. Please refer to the dataset schema for the definitions of these dimensions. We are now in the process of expanding our quality assessments to include additional dimensions to provide a more comprehensive evaluation and will update the data tables with the results when available.

This dataset documents findings form a survey on the status quo of data quality assurance practices at research data repositories.

The personalized online survey was conducted among repositories indexed in re3data in 2021. It covered the scope of the repository, types of data quality assessment, quality criteria, responsibilities, details of the review process, and data quality information, and yielded 332 complete responses.

The dataset comprises a documentation file, the data file, a codebook, and the survey instrument.

The documentation file (documentation.pdf) outlines details of the survey design and administration, survey response, and data processing. The data file (01_survey_data.csv) contains all 332 complete responses to 19 survey questions, fully anonymized. The codebook (02_codebook.csv) describes the variables, and the survey instrument (03_survey_instrument.pdf) comprises the questionnaire that was distributed to survey participants.

Under the Open Government Action Plan, and related National Action Plan, the FGP is required to report on its commitments related to: supporting a user-friendly open government platform; improving the quality of open data available on open.canada.ca; and reviewing additional geospatial datasets to assess their quality. This report summarizes the FGP’s action on meeting these commitments.

This data table provides the detailed data quality assessment scores for the SPD DG Connections Network Info dataset. The quality assessment was carried out on the 31st of March. At SPEN, we are dedicated to sharing high-quality data with our stakeholders and being transparent about its' quality. This is why we openly share the results of our data quality assessments. We collaborate closely with Data Owners to address any identified issues and enhance our overall data quality. To demonstrate our progress we conduct, at a minimum, bi-annual assessments of our data quality - for datasets that are refresehed more frequently than this, please note that the quality assessment may be based on an earlier version of the dataset. To learn more about our approach to how we assess data quality, visit Data Quality - SP Energy Networks. We welcome feedback and questions from our stakeholders regarding this process. Our Open Data Team is available to answer any enquiries or receive feedback on the assessments. You can contact them via our Open Data mailbox at opendata@spenergynetworks.co.uk.The first phase of our comprehensive data quality assessment measures the quality of our datasets across three dimensions. Please refer to the data table schema for the definitions of these dimensions. We are now in the process of expanding our quality assessments to include additional dimensions to provide a more comprehensive evaluation and will update the data tables with the results when available.

The EOSC-A FAIR Metrics and Data Quality Task Force (TF) supported the European Open Science Cloud Association (EOSC-A) by providing strategic directions on FAIRness (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) and data quality. The Task Force conducted a survey using the EUsurvey tool between 15.11.2022 and 18.01.2023, targeting both developers and users of FAIR assessment tools. The survey aimed at supporting the harmonisation of FAIR assessments, in terms of what it evaluated and how, across existing (and future) tools and services, as well as explore if and how a community-driven governance on these FAIR assessments would look like. The survey received 78 responses, mainly from academia, representing various domains and organisational roles. This is the anonymised survey dataset in csv format; most open-ended answers have been dropped. The codebook contains variable names, labels, and frequencies.

Evaluation of data quality in large healthcare datasets.

abstract: Data quality and fitness for analysis are crucial if outputs of big data analyses should be trusted by the public and the research community. Here we analyze the output from a data quality tool called Achilles Heel as it was applied to 24 datasets across seven different organizations. We highlight 12 data quality rules that identified issues in at least 10 of the 24 datasets and provide a full set of 71 rules identified in at least one dataset. Achilles Heel is developed by Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI) community and is a freely available software that provides a useful starter set of data quality rules. Our analysis represents the first data quality comparison of multiple datasets across several countries in America, Europe and Asia.

For more up to date quality metadata, please visit https://w3id.org/lodquator

This dataset is a collection of TRiG files with quality metadata for different datasets on the LOD cloud. Each dataset was assessed for

The length of URIs

Usage of RDF primitives

Re-use of existing terms

Usage of undefined terms

Usage of blank nodes

Indication for different serialisation formats

Usage of multiple languages

This data dump is part of the empirical study conducted for the paper "Are LOD Cloud Datasets Well Represented? A Data Representation Quality Survey."

For more information visit http://jerdeb.github.io/lodqa

In 2013, the first of several Regional Stream Quality Assessments (RSQA) was done in the Midwest United States. The Midwest Stream Quality Assessment (MSQA) was a collaborative study by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Assessment and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Rivers and Streams Assessment. One of the objectives of the RSQA, and thus the MSQA, is to characterize relations between stream ecology and water-quality stressors to determine the relative effects of these stressors on aquatic biota in streams. Data required to meet this objective included fish species and abundance data and physical and chemical water-quality characteristics of the ecological reaches of the sites that were sampled. This dataset comprises 135 fish species, 39,920 fish, 10 selected water-quality stressor metrics, and six selected fish community stressor response variables for 98 sites sampled for the MSQA.

This data table provides the detailed data quality assessment scores for the Historic Faults dataset. The quality assessment was carried out on the 31st March. At SPEN, we are dedicated to sharing high-quality data with our stakeholders and being transparent about its' quality. This is why we openly share the results of our data quality assessments. We collaborate closely with Data Owners to address any identified issues and enhance our overall data quality. To demonstrate our progress we conduct, at a minimum, bi-annual assessments of our data quality - for datasets that are refreshed more frequently than this, please note that the quality assessment may be based on an earlier version of the dataset. To learn more about our approach to how we assess data quality, visit Data Quality - SP Energy Networks. We welcome feedback and questions from our stakeholders regarding this process. Our Open Data Team is available to answer any enquiries or receive feedback on the assessments. You can contact them via our Open Data mailbox at opendata@spenergynetworks.co.uk.The first phase of our comprehensive data quality assessment measures the quality of our datasets across three dimensions. Please refer to the data table schema for the definitions of these dimensions. We are now in the process of expanding our quality assessments to include additional dimensions to provide a more comprehensive evaluation and will update the data tables with the results when available.

The USACE IENCs coverage area consists of 7,260 miles across 21 rivers primarily located in the Central United States. IENCs apply to inland waterways that are maintained for navigation by USACE for shallow-draft vessels (e.g., maintained at a depth of 9-14 feet, dependent upon the waterway project authorization). Generally, IENCs are produced for those commercially navigable waterways which the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) does not produce Electronic Navigational Charts (ENCs). However, Special Purpose IENCs may be produced in agreement with NOAA. IENC POC: IENC_POC@usace.army.mil

Groundwater samples were collected and analyzed from 782 wells as part of the National Water-Quality Assessment Project of the U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Quality Program and the water-quality data and quality-control data are included in this data release. The samples were collected from three types of well networks: principal aquifer study networks, which are used to assess the quality of groundwater used for public water supply; land-use study networks, which are used to assess land-use effects on shallow groundwater quality, and major aquifer study networks, which are used to assess the quality of groundwater used for domestic supply. Groundwater samples were analyzed for a large number of water-quality indicators and constituents, including nutrients, major ions, trace elements, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), pesticides, radionuclides, and microbial indicators. Data from samples collected between 2012 and 2019 are associated with networks described in a collection of data series reports and associated data releases (Arnold and others, 2016a,b, 2017a,b, 2018a,b, 2020a,b; Kingsbury and others, 2020 and 2021). This data release includes data from networks sampled in 2019 through 2022. For some networks, certain constituent group data were not completely reviewed and released by the analyzing laboratory for all network sites in time for publication of this data release. For networks with incomplete data, no data were published for the incomplete constituent group(s). Datasets excluded from this data release because of incomplete results will be included in the earliest data release published after the dataset is complete. NOTE: While previous versions are available from the author, all the records in previous versions can be found in version 3.0. First posted - December 12, 2021 (available from author) Revised - January 27, 2023 (version 2.0: available from author) Revised - November 2, 2023 (version 3.0) The compressed file (NWQP_GW_QW_DataRelease_v3.zip) contains 24 files: 23 files of groundwater-quality, quality-control data, and general information in ASCII text tab-delimited format, and one corresponding metadata file in xml format that includes descriptions of all the tables and attributes. A shapefile containing study areas for each of the sampled groundwater networks also is provided as part of this data release and is described in the metadata (Network_Boundaries_v3.zip). The files are as follows: Description_of_Data_Field_v3.txt: Information for all constituents and ancillary information found in Tables 3 through 21. Network_Reference_List_v3.txt: References used for the description of the networks sampled by the USGS NAWQA Project. Table_1_site_list_v3.txt: Information about wells that have environmental data. Table_2_parameters_v3.txt: Constituent primary uses and sources; laboratory analytical schedules and sampling period; USGS parameter codes (pcodes); comparison thresholds; and reporting levels. Table_3_qw_indicators_v3.txt: Water-quality indicators in groundwater samples collected by the USGS NAWQA Project. Table_4_nutrients_v3.txt: Nutrients and dissolved organic carbon in groundwater samples collected by the USGS NAWQA Project. Table_5_major_ions_v3.txt: Major and minor ions in groundwater samples collected by the USGS NAWQA Project. Table_6_trace_elements_v3.txt: Trace elements in groundwater samples collected by the USGS NAWQA Project. Table_7_vocs_v3.txt: Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in groundwater samples collected by the USGS NAWQA Project. Table_8_pesticides_v3.txt: Pesticides in groundwater samples collected by the USGS NAWQA Project. Table_9_radchem_v3.txt: Radionuclides in groundwater samples collected by the USGS NAWQA Project. Table_10_micro_v3.txt: Microbiological indicators in groundwater samples collected by the USGS NAWQA Project. Table_11_qw_ind_QC_v3.txt: Water-quality indicators in groundwater replicate samples collected by the USGS NAWQA Project. Table_12_nuts_QC_v3.txt: Nutrients and dissolved organic carbon in groundwater blank and replicate samples collected by the USGS NAWQA Project. Table_13_majors_QC_v3.txt: Major and minor ions in groundwater blank and replicate samples collected by the USGS NAWQA Project. Table_14_trace_element_QC_v3.txt: Trace elements in groundwater blank and replicate samples collected by the USGS NAWQA Project. Table_15_vocs_QC_v3.txt: Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in groundwater blank, replicate, and spike samples collected by the USGS NAWQA Project. Table_16_pesticides_QC_v3.txt: Pesticide compounds in groundwater blank, replicate, and spike samples collected by the USGS NAWQA Project. Table_17_radchem_QC_v3.txt: Radionuclides in groundwater replicate samples collected by the USGS NAWQA Project. Table_18_micro_QC_v3.txt: Microbiological indicators in groundwater blank, replicate, and spike samples collected by the USGS NAWQA Project. Table_19_TE_SpikeStats_v3.txt: Statistics for trace elements in groundwater spike samples collected by the USGS NAWQA Project. Table_20_VOCLabSpikeStats_v3.txt: Statistics for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in groundwater spike samples collected by the USGS NAWQA Project. Table_21_PestFieldSpikeStats_v3.txt: Statistics for pesticide compounds in groundwater spike samples collected by the USGS NAWQA Project. References Arnold, T.L., Bexfield, L.M., Musgrove, MaryLynn, Lindsey, B.D., Stackelberg, P.E., Barlow, J.R., DeSimone, L.A., Kulongoski, J.T., Kingsbury, J.A., Ayotte, J.D., Fleming, B.J., and Belitz, Kenneth, 2017a, Groundwater-quality data from the National Water-Quality Assessment Project, January through December 2014 and select quality-control data from May 2012 through December 2014: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 1063, 83 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/ds1063. Arnold, T.L., Bexfield, L.M., Musgrove, MaryLynn, Lindsey, B.D., Stackelberg, P.E., Barlow, J.R., DeSimone, L.A., Kulongoski, J.T., Kingsbury, J.A., Ayotte, J.D., Fleming, B.J., and Belitz, Kenneth, 2017b, Datasets from Groundwater quality data from the National Water Quality Assessment Project, January through December 2014 and select quality-control data from May 2012 through December 2014: U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/F7W0942N. Arnold, T.L., Bexfield, L.M., Musgrove, M., Erickson, M.L., Kingsbury, J.A., Degnan, J.R., Tesoriero, A.J., Kulongoski, J.T., and Belitz, K., 2020a, Groundwater-quality and select quality-control data from the National Water-Quality Assessment Project, January through December 2016, and previously unpublished data from 2013 to 2015: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 1124, 135 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/ds1124. Arnold, T.L., Bexfield, L.M., Musgrove, M., Lindsey, B.D., Stackelberg, P.E., Lindsey, B.D., Barlow, J.R., Kulongoski, J.T., and Belitz, K., 2018b, Datasets from Groundwater-Quality and Select Quality-Control Data from the National Water-Quality Assessment Project, January through December 2015 and Previously Unpublished Data from 2013-2014, U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/F7XK8DHK. Arnold, T.L., Bexfield, L.M., Musgrove, M., Stackelberg, P.E., Lindsey, B.D., Kingsbury, J.A., Kulongoski, J.T., and Belitz, K., 2018a, Groundwater-quality and select quality-control data from the National Water-Quality Assessment Project, January through December 2015, and previously unpublished data from 2013 to 2014: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 1087, 68 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/ds1087. Arnold, T.L., DeSimone, L.A., Bexfield, L.M., Lindsey, B.D., Barlow, J.R., Kulongoski, J.T., Musgrove, MaryLynn, Kingsbury, J.A., and Belitz, Kenneth, 2016a, Groundwater quality data from the National Water-Quality Assessment Project, May 2012 through December 2013 (ver. 1.1, November 2016): U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 997, 56 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/ds997. Arnold, T.L., DeSimone, L.A., Bexfield, L.M., Lindsey, B.D., Barlow, J.R., Kulongoski, J.T., Musgrove, MaryLynn, Kingsbury, J.A., and Belitz, Kenneth, 2016b, Groundwater quality data from the National Water Quality Assessment Project, May 2012 through December 2014 and select quality-control data from May 2012 through December 2013: U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/F7HQ3X18. Arnold, T.L., Sharpe, J.B., Bexfield, L.M., Musgrove, M., Erickson, M.L., Kingsbury, J.A., Degnan, J.R., Tesoriero, A.J., Kulongoski, J.T., and Belitz, K., 2020b, Datasets from groundwater-quality and select quality-control data from the National Water-Quality Assessment Project, January through December 2016, and previously unpublished data from 2013 to 2015: U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/P9W4RR74. Kingsbury, J.A., Sharpe, J.B., Bexfield, L.M., Arnold, T.L., Musgrove, M., Erickson, M.L., Degnan, J.R., Kulongoski, J.T., Lindsey, B.D., and Belitz, K., 2020, Datasets from Groundwater-Quality and Select Quality-Control Data from the National Water-Quality Assessment Project, January 2017 through December 2019 (ver. 1.1, January 2021): U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/P9XATXV1. Kingsbury, J.A., Bexfield, L.M., Arnold, T.L., Musgrove, M., Erickson, M.L., Degnan, J.R., Tesoriero, A.J., Lindsey B.D., and Belitz, K., 2021, Groundwater-Quality and Select Quality-Control Data from the National Water-Quality Assessment Project, January 2017 through December 2019: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 1136, 97 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/ds1136.

This data table provides the detailed data quality assessment scores for the Embedded Capacity Register dataset. The quality assessment was carried out on 30th April. Please note, this assessment only covers 1MW and above data. At SPEN, we are dedicated to sharing high-quality data with our stakeholders and being transparent about its' quality. This is why we openly share the results of our data quality assessments. We collaborate closely with Data Owners to address any identified issues and enhance our overall data quality. To demonstrate our progress we conduct, at minimum, bi-annual assessments of our data quality - for datasets that are refreshed more frequently than this, please not that the quality assessment may be based on an earlier version of the dataset. To learn more about our approach to how we assess data quality, visit Data Quality - SP Energy Networks. We welcome feedback and questions from our stakeholders regarding this process. Our Open Data Team is available to answer any enquiries or receive feedback on the assessments. You can contact them via our Open Data mailbox at opendata@spenergynetworks.co.uk.The first phase of our comprehensive data quality assessment measures the quality of our datasets across three dimensions. Please refer to the data table schema for the definitions of these dimensions. We are now in the process of expanding our quality assessments to include additional dimensions to provide a more comprehensive evaluation and will update the data tables with the results when available.

This statistic shows the size of the data quality assurance industry in South Korea from 2010 to 2016 with an estimate for 2017. It was estimated that the data quality assurance market n South Korea would value around 112.7 billion South Korean won in 2017.

Cloud Data Quality Monitoring and Testing Market Outlook

The global cloud data quality monitoring and testing market size was valued at USD 1.5 billion in 2023 and is expected to reach USD 4.8 billion by 2032, growing at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 13.8% during the forecast period. This robust growth is driven by increasing cloud adoption across various industries, coupled with the rising need for ensuring data quality and compliance.

One of the primary growth factors of the cloud data quality monitoring and testing market is the exponential increase in data generation and consumption. As organizations continue to integrate cloud solutions, the volume of data being processed and stored on the cloud has surged dramatically. This data influx necessitates stringent quality monitoring to ensure data integrity, accuracy, and consistency, thus driving the demand for advanced data quality solutions. Moreover, as businesses enhance their data-driven decision-making processes, the need for high-quality data becomes ever more critical, further propelling market growth.

Another significant driver is the growing complexity of data architectures due to diverse data sources and types. The modern data environment is characterized by a mix of structured, semi-structured, and unstructured data originating from various sources like IoT devices, social media platforms, and enterprise applications. Ensuring the quality of such heterogeneous data sets requires sophisticated monitoring and testing tools that can seamlessly operate within cloud ecosystems. Consequently, organizations are increasingly investing in cloud data quality solutions to manage this complexity, thereby fueling market expansion.

Compliance and regulatory requirements also play a pivotal role in the growth of the cloud data quality monitoring and testing market. Industries such as BFSI, healthcare, and government are subject to stringent data governance and privacy regulations that mandate regular auditing and validation of data quality. Failure to comply with these regulations can result in severe penalties and reputational damage. Hence, companies are compelled to adopt cloud data quality monitoring and testing solutions to ensure compliance and mitigate risks associated with data breaches and inaccuracies.

From a regional perspective, North America dominates the market due to its advanced IT infrastructure and early adoption of cloud technologies. However, significant growth is also expected in the Asia Pacific region, driven by rapid digital transformation initiatives and increasing investments in cloud infrastructure by emerging economies like China and India. Europe also presents substantial growth opportunities, with industries embracing cloud solutions to enhance operational efficiency and innovation. The regional dynamics indicate a wide-ranging impact of cloud data quality monitoring and testing solutions across the globe.

Component Analysis

The cloud data quality monitoring and testing market is broadly segmented into software and services. The software segment encompasses various tools and platforms designed to automate and streamline data quality monitoring processes. These solutions include data profiling, data cleansing, data integration, and master data management software. The demand for such software is on the rise due to its ability to provide real-time insights into data quality issues, thereby enabling organizations to take proactive measures in addressing discrepancies. Advanced software solutions often leverage AI and machine learning algorithms to enhance data accuracy and predictive capabilities.

The services segment is equally crucial, offering a gamut of professional and managed services to support the implementation and maintenance of data quality monitoring systems. Professional services include consulting, system integration, and training services, which help organizations in the seamless adoption of data quality tools and best practices. Managed services, on the other hand, provide ongoing support and maintenance, ensuring that data quality standards are consistently met. As organizations seek to optimize their cloud data environments, the demand for comprehensive service offerings is expected to rise, driving market growth.

One of the key trends within the component segment is the increasing integration of software and services to offer holistic data quality solutions. Vendors are increasingly bundling their software products with complementary services, providing a one-stop solution that covers all aspects of data quality managem

A key aim of the FNS-Cloud project (grant agreement no. 863059) was to overcome fragmentation within food, nutrition and health data through development of tools and services facilitating matching and merging of data to promote increased reuse. However, in an era of increasing data reuse, it is imperative that the scientific quality of data analysis is maintained. Whilst it is true that many datasets can be reused, questions remain regarding whether they should be, thus, there is a need to support researchers making such a decision. This paper describes the development and evaluation of the FNS-Cloud data quality assessment tool for dietary intake datasets. Markers of quality were identified from the literature for dietary intake, lifestyle, demographic, anthropometric, and consumer behavior data at all levels of data generation (data collection, underlying data sources used, dataset management and data analysis). These markers informed the development of a quality assessment framework, which comprised of decision trees and feedback messages relating to each quality parameter. These fed into a report provided to the researcher on completion of the assessment, with considerations to support them in deciding whether the dataset is appropriate for reuse. This quality assessment framework was transformed into an online tool and a user evaluation study undertaken. Participants recruited from three centres (N = 13) were observed and interviewed while using the tool to assess the quality of a dataset they were familiar with. Participants positively rated the assessment format and feedback messages in helping them assess the quality of a dataset. Several participants quoted the tool as being potentially useful in training students and inexperienced researchers in the use of secondary datasets. This quality assessment tool, deployed within FNS-Cloud, is openly accessible to users as one of the first steps in identifying datasets suitable for use in their specific analyses. It is intended to support researchers in their decision-making process of whether previously collected datasets under consideration for reuse are fit their new intended research purposes. While it has been developed and evaluated, further testing and refinement of this resource would improve its applicability to a broader range of users.

Data collected using the Malaria Routine Data Quality Assessment (MRDQA) Tool in Cote d'Ivoire, over 3 time periods from March 2021 to November 2022.