Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25848603›Full record

ArticleEGEMS (Washington, DC)2014

The DARTNet Institute: Seeking a Sustainable Support Mechanism for Electronic Data Enabled Research Networks.

Wilson D Pace, Chester H Fox, Turner White, Deborah Graham, Lisa M Schilling, David R West

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EGEMS (Washington, DC), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Journal of healthcare informatics research · 2019
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Exploring completeness in clinical data research networks with DQe-c.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2018
    Article
  11. Article
  12. DQEGEMS (Washington, DC) · 2017
    Article
  13. 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

6 authors.

Wilson D PaceUniversity of Colorado School of Medicine.
Chester H FoxUniversity at Buffalo.
Turner WhiteRockhurst University.
Deborah GrahamAmerican Academy of Family Physicians.
Lisa M SchillingUniversity of Colorado School of Medicine.
David R WestUniversity of Colorado School of Medicine.

Funding

AHRQ HHS R01 HS022956
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextClinical data research networks require large investments in infrastructure support to maintain their abilities to extract, transform, and load data from varied data sources, expand electronic data sources and develop learning communities. CASE DESCRIPTION: This paper outlines a sustainable business model of ongoing infrastructure support for clinical data research activities. The DARTNet Institute is a not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organization that serves as a support entity for multiple practice-based research networks. Several clinical data research networks working closely with a professional society began collaborating to support shared goals in 2008. This loose affiliation called itself the "DARTNet Collaborative." In 2011, the DARTNet Institute incorporated as an independent, not-for-profit entity. The business structure allows DARTNet to advocate for all partners without operating its own practice-based research network, serve as a legal voice for activities that overlap multiple partners, share personnel resources through service contracts between partners, and purchase low-cost (nonprofit rate) software. MAJOR THEMES: DARTNet's business model relies upon four diverse sources of revenue: (1) DARTNet licenses and provides access to a propriety software system that extracts, transforms, and loads data from all major electronic health records (EHRs) utilized in the United States, and which also provides clinical decision support for research studies; (2) DARTNet operates a recognized, national professional-society-quality improvement registry that enables organizations to fulfill Meaningful Use 2 criteria; (3) DARTNet provides access to data for research activities that are funded by direct research dollars, provided at prices that generate excess revenue; and (4) DARTNet provides access to large primary care datasets for observational studies and pregrant analyses such as for sample size development. The ability of the system to support pragmatic trials will be described.

conclusionThe DARTNet model facilitates the use of direct grant dollars to generate revenue to support the overall enterprise through a purchased services arrangement. Other services provided through subcontracting provide facilities and administration fees as well as direct dollars to support the system. The flexibility of the business model overcomes the complicated financial arrangements and governance requirements of many professional associations and academic medical centers.

Indexed as

research networksshared resourcesSustainability

Identifiers

PMID25848603
PMCPMC4371434

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.