ArticleBMC medical research methodology2026
Privacy rights and improving knowledge are not hierarchical needs: data protection and good epidemiologic standard (DP_GOES) checklist for retrospective observational studies using secondary data.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Starting with the Nuremberg Code in 1947, several guidelines were developed to formulate rules to guide research on humans and safeguard the rights and well-being of subjects participating in clinical research. In recent years, retrospective observational studies based on disease and drug registries, surveillance systems, hospital-based data lakes and platforms, and unstructured data have gained progressively greater attention in the medical literature. Although several guidelines and checklists are currently available to develop and evaluate a protocol for observational studies, issues concerning ethical considerations, data protection and data access have been often ignored. We propose the Data Protection and Good Epidemiologic Standard (DP_GOES) checklist for the development and evaluation of the protocol of observational, retrospective studies based on secondary data. The checklist is divided into four parts, 9 sections and 68 items, and should help to verify whether the study protocol respects the constraints of the regulatory requirements and provisions of data protection authorities, while ensuring that the study may generate robust evidence potentially useful to promote health, supplying more effective healthcare, and guaranteeing system sustainability. The DP_GOES checklist represents a novel and integrative contribution, as it systematically combines epidemiological research standards with data protection principles. Its practical value lies in offering a structured and operational tool that supports both researchers and evaluators in conducting and assessing retrospective observational studies based on secondary data in a rigorous, transparent, and ethically accepted manner.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.