Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23533569›Full record

ArticlePloS one2013

SHRINE: enabling nationally scalable multi-site disease studies.

Andrew J McMurry, Shawn N Murphy, Douglas MacFadden, Griffin Weber, William W Simons, John Orechia, Jonathan Bickel, Nich Wattanasin, Clint Gilbert, Philip Trevvett and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 78 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
78citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

78 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Clinical Research Informatics: a Decade-in-Review.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2024
    Review
  11. Cumulus: A federated EHR-based learning system powered by FHIR and AI.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

18 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

12 authors.

Andrew J McMurryCenter for Biomedical Informatics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America. Andrew_McMurry@hms.harvard.edu
Shawn N Murphy
Douglas MacFadden
Griffin Weber
William W Simons
John Orechia
Jonathan Bickel
Nich Wattanasin
Clint Gilbert
Philip Trevvett
Susanne Churchill
Isaac S Kohane

Funding

HARVARD CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE CENTER (UL1)UL1RR025758 · NCRR · HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL · PI NADLER, LEE MARSHALL · 2008 to 2011
$91.4M
Informatics for Integrating Biology/ the Bedside (RMI)U54LM008748 · NLM · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI KOHANE, ISAAC S. · 2004 to 2013
$39.0M
NCRR NIH HHS 1UL1RR025758-01NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR025758NLM NIH HHS U54 LM008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Results of medical research studies are often contradictory or cannot be reproduced. One reason is that there may not be enough patient subjects available for observation for a long enough time period. Another reason is that patient populations may vary considerably with respect to geographic and demographic boundaries thus limiting how broadly the results apply. Even when similar patient populations are pooled together from multiple locations, differences in medical treatment and record systems can limit which outcome measures can be commonly analyzed. In total, these differences in medical research settings can lead to differing conclusions or can even prevent some studies from starting. We thus sought to create a patient research system that could aggregate as many patient observations as possible from a large number of hospitals in a uniform way. We call this system the 'Shared Health Research Information Network', with the following properties: (1) reuse electronic health data from everyday clinical care for research purposes, (2) respect patient privacy and hospital autonomy, (3) aggregate patient populations across many hospitals to achieve statistically significant sample sizes that can be validated independently of a single research setting, (4) harmonize the observation facts recorded at each institution such that queries can be made across many hospitals in parallel, (5) scale to regional and national collaborations. The purpose of this report is to provide open source software for multi-site clinical studies and to report on early uses of this application. At this time SHRINE implementations have been used for multi-site studies of autism co-morbidity, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, peripartum cardiomyopathy, colorectal cancer, diabetes, and others. The wide range of study objectives and growing adoption suggest that SHRINE may be applicable beyond the research uses and participating hospitals named in this report.

Indexed as

SoftwareBiomedical ResearchHumans

Identifiers

PMID23533569
PMCPMC3591385

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.