ArticleStudies in health technology and informatics2007
An XML model of an enhanced data dictionary to facilitate the exchange of pre-existing clinical research data in international studies.
Article in Studies in health technology and informatics, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Standardized Representation of Clinical Study Data Dictionaries with CIMI Archetypes.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2016Article
- Cost-effectiveness of Methadone Maintenance Treatment in Prevention of HIV Among Drug Users in Shiraz, South of Iran.Iranian Red Crescent medical journal · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Pre-existing clinical research data sets exchanged in international epidemiology research often lack the elements needed to assess their suitability for use in multi-region meta-analyses or other clinical studies. While the missing information is generally known to local investigators, it is not contained in the files exchanged between sites. Instead, such content must be solicited by the study coordinating center though a series of lengthy phone and electronic communications: an informal process whose reproducibility and accuracy decays over time. This report describes a set of supplemental information needed to assess whether clinical research data from diverse research sites are truly comparable, and what metadata ("data about the data") should be preserved when a data set is archived for future use. We propose a structured Extensible Markup Language (XML) model that captures this information. The authors hope this model will be a first step towards preserving the metadata associated with clinical research data sets, thereby improving the quality of international data exchange, data archiving, and merged-data research using data collected in many different countries, languages and care settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
17911757PMC3730279What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.