PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Wills, AK TI - Screening & diagnosing errors in longitudinal measures of body size AID - 10.1101/2020.11.19.20234872 DP - 2020 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2020.11.19.20234872 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/11/19/2020.11.19.20234872.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/11/19/2020.11.19.20234872.full AB - This paper presents a novel multi-step automated algorithm to screen for errors in longitudinal height and weight data and describes the frequency and characteristics of errors in three datasets. It also offers a taxonomy of published cleaning routines from a scoping review.Illustrative data are from three Norwegian retrospective cohorts containing 87,792 assessments (birth to 14y) from 8,428 children. Each has different data pipelines, quality control and data structure. The algorithm contains 43 steps split into 3 sections; (a) dates, (b) Identifiable data entry errors, (c) biologically impossible/ implausible change, and uses logic checks, and cross-sectional and longitudinal routines. The WHO cross-sectional approach was also applied as a comparison.Published cleaning routines were taxonomized by their design, the marker used to screen errors, the reference threshold and how threshold was selected. Fully automated error detection was not possible without false positives or reduced sensitivity. Error frequencies in the cohorts were 0.4%, 2.1% and 2.4% of all assessments, and the percentage of children with ≥1 error was 4.1%, 13.4% and 15.3%. In two of the datasets, >2/3s of errors could be classified as inliers (within ±3SD scores). Children with errors had a similar distribution of HT and WT to those without error. The WHO cross-sectional approach lacked sensitivity (range 0-55%), flagged many false positives (range: 7-100%) and biased estimates of overweight and thinness.Elements of this algorithm may have utility for built-in data entry rules, data harmonisation and sensitivity analyses. The reported error frequencies and structure may also help design more realistic simulation studies to test routines. Multi-step distribution-wide algorithmic approaches are recommended to systematically screen and document the wide range of ways in which errors can occur and to maximise sensitivity for detecting errors, naive cross-sectional trimming as a stand-alone method may do more harm than good.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis work was supported by the Norwegian Research Council (grant number 260408/H10. The 2010 & 2015 childhood growth studies were funded by the Ministry of Health and Care, Norwegian Directorate of Health & Norwegian Institute of Public Health and were part of the WHO COSI (childhood obesity surveillance initiative) project. The Norwegian Research Council had no role in the design, analysis or writing of this article.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The study was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration. Ethical approval and research clearance were obtained from the Regional Committee for Medical Research Ethics (2017/431 and 2010/938).All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesData are not publicly available, enquiries for access can be made to the Institute of Public Health, Norway. Statistical code is available on request.