Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41787337›Full record

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.

Giovanni Corrao, Marco Greco, Olivia Leoni, Matteo Franchi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Giovanni CorraoEmeritus Professor in Medical Statistics, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy.
Marco GrecoEuropean Patients' Forum, Brussels, Belgium.
Olivia LeoniOperative Centre for Health Data, Welfare Department, Lombardy Region, Milan, Italy.
Matteo FranchiNational Centre for Healthcare Research and Pharmacoepidemiology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy. matteo.franchi@unimib.it.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

ChecklistComputer SecurityConfidentialityObservational Studies as TopicPrivacyHumansRetrospective StudiesSecondary Data AnalysisChecklistData protectionGood practiceObservational studiesPrivacy-by-designRetrospectiveSecondary data

Identifiers

PMID41787337
PMCPMC13077908

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.