Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25848610›Full record

ArticleEGEMS (Washington, DC)2014

Sustainability considerations for health research and analytic data infrastructures.

Adam Wilcox, Gurvaneet Randhawa, Peter Embi, Hui Cao, Gilad J Kuperman

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 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. The Common Fund Data Ecosystem (CFDE).bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  3. Clinical Research Informatics: a Decade-in-Review.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2024
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Research Data Explorer: Lessons Learned in Design and Development of Context-based Cohort Definition and Selection.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2015
    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

5 authors.

Adam WilcoxIntermountain Healthcare.
Gurvaneet RandhawaAgency for Healthcare Research & Quality.
Peter EmbiThe Ohio State University.
Hui CaoAstrazeneca Pharmaceuticals.
Gilad J Kuperman

Funding

Washington Heights Initiative Community-based Comparative Effectiveness ResearchR01HS019853 · AHRQ · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI BAKKEN, SUZANNE · 2010 to 2010
$8.9M
WICER 4UR01HS022961 · AHRQ · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI BAKKEN, SUZANNE · 2013 to 2013
$750k
AHRQ HHS R01 HS019853AHRQ HHS R01 HS022961
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe United States has made recent large investments in creating data infrastructures to support the important goals of patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) and comparative effectiveness research (CER), with still more investment planned. These initial investments, while critical to the creation of the infrastructures, are not expected to sustain them much beyond the initial development. To provide the maximum benefit, the infrastructures need to be sustained through innovative financing models while providing value to PCOR and CER researchers. SUSTAINABILITY FACTORS: Based on our experience with creating flexible sustainability strategies (i.e., strategies that are adaptive to the different characteristics and opportunities of a resource or infrastructure), we define specific factors that are important considerations in developing a sustainability strategy. These factors include assets, expansion, complexity, and stakeholders. Each factor is described, with examples of how it is applied. These factors are dimensions of variation in different resources, to which a sustainability strategy should adapt. SUMMARY OBSERVATIONS: We also identify specific important considerations for maintaining an infrastructure, so that the long-term intended benefits can be realized. These observations are presented as lessons learned, to be applied to other sustainability efforts. We define the lessons learned, relating them to the defined sustainability factors as interactions between factors. CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS: Using perspectives and experiences from a diverse group of experts, we define broad characteristics of sustainability strategies and important observations, which can vary for different projects. Other descriptions of adaptive, flexible, and successful models of collaboration between stakeholders and data infrastructures can expand this framework by identifying other factors for sustainability, and give more concrete directions on how sustainability can be best achieved.

Indexed as

data reusehealth information technologysustainability

Identifiers

PMID25848610
PMCPMC4371522

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.