Definition and research guide
This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.
Content available: 3 complete abstracts (746 words), 9 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.
Definition
Systematic gathering of data for a particular purpose from various sources, including questionnaires, interviews, observation, existing records, and electronic devices. The process is usually preliminary to statistical analysis of the data.
Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.
Also known as: Collection, Data; Dual Data Collection; Collection, Dual Data; Data Collection Methods; Collection Method, Data; Collection Methods, Data; Data Collection Method; Method, Data Collection.
Where it fits in the MeSH classification
- Broader topics
- Epidemiologic Methods; Information Management; Health Care Evaluation Mechanisms
- Narrower topics
- Data Accuracy; Datasets as Topic; Focus Groups; Geriatric Assessment; Health Impact Assessment; Interviews as Topic; Lot Quality Assurance Sampling; Narration; Negative Results; Nutrition Assessment; Preliminary Data; Records; Registries; Sanitary Surveys, Water Supply
- See also
- Empirical Research
Research landscape
PubMed indexes 2,914,139 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Data Collection” (counts retrieved 2026-10-29). 726,784 of them (24.9%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is 2010-2019 with 1,074,633 records.
Reviews account for 234,084 records (8.0%) and meta-analyses for 36,687. Randomized controlled trials number 97,319 (3.3%) as a share of all records on the topic.
Show the data
| Period | Records |
|---|---|
| through 1999 | 459,625 |
| 2000-2009 | 653,097 |
| 2010-2019 | 1,074,633 |
| 2020 onward | 726,784 |
Publication-type chart data
| Type | Records | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Reviews | 234,084 | 8.0% |
| Meta-analyses | 36,687 | 1.3% |
| Randomized controlled trials | 97,319 | 3.3% |
Method: PubMed query "Data Collection"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-10-29.
Reading the evidence in clinical research
Research methods determine how much a result can be trusted. Randomized trials guard against confounding, systematic reviews and meta-analyses combine many studies, and observational designs are valuable but can show only association. Reporting standards, trial registration and pre-specified outcomes reduce bias. When reading about a method, ask what problem it is designed to solve and which problems it does not solve.
Evidence from open-access studies
These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.
| Study / authors | Year | Source label / design | Europe PMC citations | Licence / source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Postnatal interventions to support newborn survival: updates for the Lives Saved Tool | 2026 | Systematic review Design not recorded in structured metadata | 1 | cc by PMID 42825351 · DOI · PMC13631769 |
| Antenatal interventions to support newborn survival: updates for the Lives Saved Tool | 2026 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 1 | cc by PMID 42825345 · DOI · PMC13631934 |
| Modeling Exposure-Mortality Relationships for Indoor Heat | 2026 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 0 | cc by PMID 42904486 · DOI · PMC13685053 |
Postnatal interventions to support newborn survival: updates for the Lives Saved Tool [1]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- BackgroundThe period immediately after birth represents a highly vulnerable time for newborns, particularly in contexts without access to high-quality secondary care for small and/or sick newborns.
- Closing excerpt
- The new interventions and updated effect estimates can provide more accurate projections of potential impacts on neonatal survival for different intervention coverage scale-up scenarios in low- and middle-income countries.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (300 words)
BackgroundThe period immediately after birth represents a highly vulnerable time for newborns, particularly in contexts without access to high-quality secondary care for small and/or sick newborns. Scaling up existing evidence-based interventions can avert much of the mortality and morbidity that occurs during the neonatal period. We summarise the evidence for interventions delivered postnatally and propose a set of effect estimates for inclusion in the Lives Saved Tool (LiST).MethodsWe first conducted a set of systematic reviews and updates on the most recent evidence from randomised controlled trials on the effectiveness of interventions for reducing neonatal mortality and associated risk factors. We then assessed the evidence using standardised set of considerations alongside an iterative consultation process with newborn care experts to determine whether and how new meta-analysed effect estimates could be incorporated into the LiST model, as well as which of these estimates should be updated and which should be retained.ResultsWe proposed a new set of interventions that involve three packages of newborn care: a basic package (i.e. primary/community, secondary hospital care), a referral care package (i.e. tertiary care), and a package of promising innovative interventions whose evidence base is still developing. We included five new interventions within the updated LiST model's basic and referral packages: nasal continuous positive airway pressure coupled with preterm supportive care, newborn referral and transportation, animal-derived surfactant, prophylactic antifungals, and antibiotic stewardship. Three new interventions were proposed for the innovation package: magnesium sulphate for neuroprotection in asphyxiated newborns, topical emollient therapy, and probiotics/synbiotics for hospitalised preterm newborns.ConclusionsWe synthesised the evidence base for the impact of a package of effective postnatal interventions for neonates for an updated LiST model. The new interventions and updated effect estimates can provide more accurate projections of potential impacts on neonatal survival for different intervention coverage scale-up scenarios in low- and middle-income countries.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 42825351 · DOI · PMC13631769
Antenatal interventions to support newborn survival: updates for the Lives Saved Tool [2]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- BackgroundAntenatal care strategies encompass a series of interventions delivered to expectant mothers to optimise both their health outcomes and those of their neonate.
- Closing excerpt
- These estimates can be used as inputs to model the impact of antenatal care interventions using the LiST.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (285 words)
BackgroundAntenatal care strategies encompass a series of interventions delivered to expectant mothers to optimise both their health outcomes and those of their neonate. We summarise the most recent effect estimates for maternal immunisation, screening and management of infections, pre-existing chronic diseases such as hypertension and diabetes, nutrition, psychosocial interventions for smoking cessation, pre-term pre-labour rupture of membranes, administration of corticosteroids for foetal lung maturation, and induction of post-term labour.MethodsWe synthesised effect estimates for antenatal and intrapartum interventions using PubMed and CENTRAL searches (2022-2023) and in consultation with a technical advisory group to determine whether and how new meta-analysed effect estimates could be incorporated into the Lives Saved Tool (LiST) model, as well as which of these estimates should be updated and which should be retained.ResultsTetanus toxoid vaccination during the antenatal period lead to a significant reduction in neonatal mortality. Antibiotics for pre-term pre-labour rupture of membranes and administration of corticosteroids for foetal lung maturation lead to significant reductions in neonatal mortality due to sepsis and prematurity, respectively. Nutritional interventions including balanced protein and energy supplementation and multiple micronutrient supplementation reduced the risks of small-for-gestational-age babies. Insecticide-treated bed-nets for malaria, antibiotic treatment of syphilis, and post-term induction of labour demonstrated significant reductions in the risks of stillbirth. The effect estimates for preterm births contributed to the LiST model for interventions including treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria, omega-3 fatty acid supplementation, calcium supplementation, and provision of low-dose aspirin for pre-eclampsia, which projected significant reductions in the risks of small-for-gestational-age babies.ConclusionsThe evidence described here highlights the potential impact of implementing high-yield healthcare packages in context-specific settings to effectively improve neonatal survival. These estimates can be used as inputs to model the impact of antenatal care interventions using the LiST.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 42825345 · DOI · PMC13631934
Modeling Exposure-Mortality Relationships for Indoor Heat [3]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- Most individuals spend the majority of their time indoors.
- Closing excerpt
- Furthermore, it provides a new theoretical framework for interpreting potential differences in the temperature-mortality relationship of indoor and outdoor heat exposure in epidemiological studies.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (161 words)
Most individuals spend the majority of their time indoors. However, epidemiological evidence of the association between heat and mortality is dominated by studies using outdoor temperature as a proxy for personal exposure. To demonstrate how an exposure-response relationship between indoor heat and mortality may relate to that between outdoor heat and mortality, we develop a novel mathematical modeling approach. This approachuses the relationship between regional daily average indoor and outdoor temperature to map the exposure-response relationship for outdoor heat, estimated by epidemiological studies, to indoor heat. Due to the modifying effect of buildings on heat exposure, we show that a change in indoor temperature may be associated with a greater change in mortality than an equal change in outdoor temperature. This has implications for researchers seeking to assess the health impact of changes in indoor heat exposure. Furthermore, it provides a new theoretical framework for interpreting potential differences in the temperature-mortality relationship of indoor and outdoor heat exposure in epidemiological studies.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 42904486 · DOI · PMC13685053
Key reviews and meta-analyses
The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.
- Research article Global, regional, and national burden of headache disorders, 1990-2023: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2023 [4]
- Research article Comparative Efficacy of Advanced Therapies for Management of Moderate-to-Severe Ulcerative Colitis: 2024 American Gastroenterological Association Evidence Synthesis [5]
- Research article Cardiorespiratory fitness, body mass index and mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis [6]
- Research article Loneliness, social isolation, and living alone: a comprehensive systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression of mortality risks in older adults [7]
- Research article Deaths potentially averted by small changes in physical activity and sedentary time: an individual participant data meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies [8]
- Research article Screening for Osteoporosis to Prevent Fractures: A Systematic Evidence Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force [9]
References
- Vaivada T, Tam Y, Dominguez G, Jiang L, Him RL, Muralidharan O, et al.. Postnatal interventions to support newborn survival: updates for the Lives Saved Tool. . 2026. PMID 42825351 · DOI · PMC13631769
- Yasin R, Tam Y, Rizvi A, Vaivada T, Ali AA, Black RE, et al.. Antenatal interventions to support newborn survival: updates for the Lives Saved Tool. . 2026. PMID 42825345 · DOI · PMC13631934
- Ibbetson A, Simpson C, Petrou G, Oikonomou E, Mavrogianni A, Gupta R, et al.. Modeling Exposure-Mortality Relationships for Indoor Heat. . 2026. PMID 42904486 · DOI · PMC13685053
- GBD 2023 Headache Collaborators. Global, regional, and national burden of headache disorders, 1990-2023: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2023. Lancet Neurol. 2025. PMID 41240916 · DOI · PMC12612381
- Ananthakrishnan AN, Murad MH, Scott FI, Agrawal M, Haydek JP, Limketkai BN, et al.. Comparative Efficacy of Advanced Therapies for Management of Moderate-to-Severe Ulcerative Colitis: 2024 American Gastroenterological Association Evidence Synthesis. Gastroenterology. 2024. PMID 39425738 · DOI · PMC12148344
- Weeldreyer NR, De Guzman JC, Paterson C, Allen JD, Gaesser GA, Angadi SS. Cardiorespiratory fitness, body mass index and mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. 2025. PMID 39537313 · DOI · PMC11874340
- Nakou A, Dragioti E, Bastas NS, Zagorianakou N, Kakaidi V, Tsartsalis D, et al.. Loneliness, social isolation, and living alone: a comprehensive systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression of mortality risks in older adults. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2025. PMID 39836319 · DOI · PMC11750934
- Ekelund U, Tarp J, Ding D, Sanchez-Lastra MA, Dalene KE, Anderssen SA, et al.. Deaths potentially averted by small changes in physical activity and sedentary time: an individual participant data meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Lancet. 2026. PMID 41544645 · DOI
- Kahwati LC, Kistler CE, Booth G, Sathe N, Gordon RD, Okah E, et al.. Screening for Osteoporosis to Prevent Fractures: A Systematic Evidence Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2025. PMID 39808441 · DOI · PMC12911848
About this article
- Sources
- NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
- Verification
- Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-10-31; title, year and DOI matched.
- Review state
- automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
- Version
- 1, last updated 2026-10-29.
See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.
Evidence strength
EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.