Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22692258›Full record

ReviewMedical care2012

Building the informatics infrastructure for comparative effectiveness research (CER): a review of the literature.

Marianne Hamilton Lopez, Erin Holve, Indra Neil Sarkar, Courtney Segal

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Medical care, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. National health information technology priorities for research: A policy and development agenda.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2020
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. The COMET Sleep Research Platform.EGEMS (Washington, DC) · 2014
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. eGEMs: An Opportunity for Better Science.EGEMS (Washington, DC) · 2013
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Marianne Hamilton LopezAcademyHealth, Washington, DC 20036, USA. marianne.hamiltonlopez@academyhealth.org
Erin Holve
Indra Neil Sarkar
Courtney Segal

Funding

AcademyHealth Electronic Data Methods (EDM) Forum for Comparative Effectiveness RU13HS019564 · AHRQ · ACADEMYHEALTH · PI HOLVE, ERIN C · 2010 to 2010
$3.9M
AHRQ HHS U13HS19564-01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTechnological advances in clinical informatics have made large amounts of data accessible and potentially useful for research. As a result, a burgeoning literature addresses efforts to bridge the fields of health services research and biomedical informatics. The Electronic Data Methods Forum review examines peer-reviewed literature at the intersection of comparative effectiveness research and clinical informatics. The authors are specifically interested in characterizing this literature and identifying cross-cutting themes and gaps in the literature.

methodsA 3-step systematic literature search was conducted, including a structured search of PubMed, manual reviews of articles from selected publication lists, and manual reviews of research activities based on prospective electronic clinical data. Two thousand four hundred thirty-five citations were identified as potentially relevant. Ultimately, a full-text review was performed for 147 peer-reviewed papers.

resultsOne hundred thirty-two articles were selected for inclusion in the review. Of these, 88 articles are the focus of the discussion in this paper. Three types of articles were identified, including papers that: (1) provide historical context or frameworks for using clinical informatics for research, (2) describe platforms and projects, and (3) discuss issues, challenges, and applications of natural language processing. In addition, 2 cross-cutting themes emerged: the challenges of conducting research in the absence of standardized ontologies and data collection; and unique data governance concerns related to the transfer, storage, deidentification, and access to electronic clinical data. Finally, the authors identified several current gaps on important topics such as the use of clinical informatics for cohort identification, cloud computing, and single point access to research data.

Indexed as

Comparative Effectiveness ResearchComputer SecurityConfidentialityHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalInformed ConsentMedical InformaticsMedical Records Systems, Computerized

Identifiers

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.