ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2015
A generic solution for web-based management of pseudonymized data.
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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pseudonymization tools for medical research: a systematic review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Pooled it
- Dual-informant clinical outcome assessment in the inclusive orchestra: measurement architecture for neurodevelopmental disorders prior to empirical evaluation.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Article
- Scoping review of the recommendations and guidance for improving the quality of rare disease registries.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2024Article
- A Scalable Pseudonymization Tool for Rapid Deployment in Large Biomedical Research Networks: Development and Evaluation Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2024Article
- Development of a Trusted Third Party at a Large University Hospital: Design and Implementation Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2024Article
- The transplant cohort of the German center for infection research (DZIF Tx-Cohort): study design and baseline characteristics.European journal of epidemiology · 2021Article
- Key components and IT assistance of participant management in clinical research: a scoping review.JAMIA open · 2020Article
- Integration of mathematical model predictions into routine workflows to support clinical decision making in haematology.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2020Article
- Pseudonymization for research data collection: is the juice worth the squeeze?BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2019Article
- Data Integration for Future Medicine (DIFUTURE).Methods of information in medicine · 2018Article
- Clinical Research Informatics: Supporting the Research Study Lifecycle.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2017Review
- Efficient and effective pruning strategies for health data de-identification.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.