Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26621059›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2015

A generic solution for web-based management of pseudonymized data.

Ronald Lautenschläger, Florian Kohlmayer, Fabian Prasser, Klaus A Kuhn

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

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

  1. Pseudonymization tools for medical research: a systematic review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Data Integration for Future Medicine (DIFUTURE).Methods of information in medicine · 2018
    Article
  11. Review
  12. 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

4 authors.

Ronald LautenschlägerChair for Biomedical Informatics, Department of Medicine, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Grillparzerstraße 18, 81675, Munich, Germany. ronald.lautenschlaeger@tum.de.
Florian KohlmayerChair for Biomedical Informatics, Department of Medicine, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Grillparzerstraße 18, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Fabian PrasserChair for Biomedical Informatics, Department of Medicine, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Grillparzerstraße 18, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Klaus A KuhnChair for Biomedical Informatics, Department of Medicine, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Grillparzerstraße 18, 81675, Munich, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCollaborative collection and sharing of data have become a core element of biomedical research. Typical applications are multi-site registries which collect sensitive person-related data prospectively, often together with biospecimens. To secure these sensitive data, national and international data protection laws and regulations demand the separation of identifying data from biomedical data and to introduce pseudonyms. Neither the formulation in laws and regulations nor existing pseudonymization concepts, however, are precise enough to directly provide an implementation guideline. We therefore describe core requirements as well as implementation options for registries and study databases with sensitive biomedical data.

methodsWe first analyze existing concepts and compile a set of fundamental requirements for pseudonymized data management. Then we derive a system architecture that fulfills these requirements. Next, we provide a comprehensive overview and a comparison of different technical options for an implementation. Finally, we develop a generic software solution for managing pseudonymized data and show its feasibility by describing how we have used it to realize two research networks.

resultsWe have found that pseudonymization models are highly heterogeneous, already on a conceptual level. We have compiled a set of requirements from different pseudonymization schemes. We propose an architecture and present an overview of technical options. Based on a selection of technical elements, we suggest a generic solution. It supports the multi-site collection and management of biomedical data. Security measures are multi-tier pseudonymity and physical separation of data over independent backend servers. Integrated views are provided by a web-based user interface. Our approach has been successfully used to implement a national and an international rare disease network.

conclusionsWe were able to identify a set of core requirements out of several pseudonymization models. Considering various implementation options, we realized a generic solution which was implemented and deployed in research networks. Still, further conceptual work on pseudonymity is needed. Specifically, it remains unclear how exactly data is to be separated into distributed subsets. Moreover, a thorough risk and threat analysis is needed.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchConfidentialityDatasets as TopicGuidelines as TopicHumansRegistries

Identifiers

PMID26621059
PMCPMC4665916

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.