Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17460139›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA

Issues in biomedical research data management and analysis: needs and barriers.

Nicholas R Anderson, E Sally Lee, J Scott Brockenbrough, Mark E Minie, Sherrilynne Fuller, James Brinkley, Peter Tarczy-Hornoch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing 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

46 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Integrated data-driven biotechnology research environments.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2025
    Review
  3. Bioinformatics proficiency among African students.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. A scoping review of qualitative research in JAMIA: past contributions and opportunities for future work.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

7 authors.

Nicholas R AndersonUniversity of Washington, Department of Medical Education and Biomedical Informatics, Box 357240, Seattle, WA 98195-7420, USA. nicka@u.washington.edu
E Sally Lee
J Scott Brockenbrough
Mark E Minie
Sherrilynne Fuller
James Brinkley
Peter Tarczy-Hornoch

Funding

University of Washington Biomedical Informatics and Data Science Research Training ProgramT15LM007442 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI JOHN H. GENNARI, Andrea L. Hartzler · 2002 to 2026
$19.6M
STRUCTURAL INFORMATION FRAMEWORK FOR BRAIN MAPPINGR01DC002310 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI BRINKLEY, JAMES F · 1994 to 2006
$2.5M
GENESEEK: DATA INTEGRATION SYSTEM FOR GENETIC DATABASESR01HG002288 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI TARCZY-HORNOCH, PETER · 2000 to 2005
$2.0M
Interdisciplinary Center for Structural InformaticsP20LM007714 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI BRINKLEY, JAMES F · 2003 to 2005
$1.9M
NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG002288NHGRI NIH HHS R01-HG02288NIDCD NIH HHS DC02310NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC002310NLM NIH HHS P20 LM007714NLM NIH HHS P20-LM007714NLM NIH HHS T15 LM007442NLM NIH HHS T15LM07442
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesA. Identify the current state of data management needs of academic biomedical researchers. B. Explore their anticipated data management and analysis needs. C. Identify barriers to addressing those needs.

designA multimodal needs analysis was conducted using a combination of an online survey and in-depth one-on-one semi-structured interviews. Subjects were recruited via an e-mail list representing a wide range of academic biomedical researchers in the Pacific Northwest. MEASUREMENTS: The results from 286 survey respondents were used to provide triangulation of the qualitative analysis of data gathered from 15 semi-structured in-depth interviews.

resultsThree major themes were identified: 1) there continues to be widespread use of basic general-purpose applications for core data management; 2) there is broad perceived need for additional support in managing and analyzing large datasets; and 3) the barriers to acquiring currently available tools are most commonly related to financial burdens on small labs and unmet expectations of institutional support.

conclusionThemes identified in this study suggest that at least some common data management needs will best be served by improving access to basic level tools such that researchers can solve their own problems. Additionally, institutions and informaticians should focus on three components: 1) facilitate and encourage the use of modern data exchange models and standards, enabling researchers to leverage a common layer of interoperability and analysis; 2) improve the ability of researchers to maintain provenance of data and models as they evolve over time though tools and the leveraging of standards; and 3) develop and support information management service cores that could assist in these previous components while providing researchers with unique data analysis and information design support within a spectrum of informatics capabilities.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchInformation ManagementData CollectionInformation Storage and RetrievalInformation SystemsInternetInterviews as TopicNeeds Assessment

Identifiers

PMID17460139
PMCPMC2244904

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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 OpenQuestion graph.