ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2014
Using patient lists to add value to integrated data repositories.
Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A narrative review of data collection and analysis guidelines for comparative effectiveness research in chronic pain using patient-reported outcomes and electronic health records.Journal of pain research · 2019Article
- Evaluating the Efficacy of a Registry linked to a Consent to Re-Contact Program and Communication Strategies for Recruiting and Enrolling Participants into Clinical Trials.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2017Article
- A Consensus-Based Approach for Harmonizing the OHDSI Common Data Model with HL7 FHIR.Studies in health technology and informatics · 2017Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Patient lists are project-specific sets of patients that can be queried in integrated data repositories (IDR's). By allowing a set of patients to be an addition to the qualifying conditions of a query, returned results will refer to, and only to, that set of patients. We report a variety of use cases for such lists, including: restricting retrospective chart review to a defined set of patients; following a set of patients for practice management purposes; distributing "honest-brokered" (deidentified) data; adding phenotypes to biosamples; and enhancing the content of study or registry data. Among the capabilities needed to implement patient lists in an IDR are: capture of patient identifiers from a query and feedback of these into the IDR; the existence of a permanent internal identifier in the IDR that is mappable to external identifiers; the ability to add queryable attributes to the IDR; the ability to merge data from multiple queries; and suitable control over user access and de-identification of results. We implemented patient lists in a custom IDR of our own design. We reviewed capabilities of other published IDRs for focusing on sets of patients. The widely used i2b2 IDR platform has various ways to address patient sets, and it could be modified to add the low-overhead version of patient lists that we describe.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.