Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26944737›Full record

ReviewJournal of biomedical informatics2016

Current applications and future directions for the CDISC Operational Data Model standard: A methodological review.

Sam Hume, Jozef Aerts, Surendra Sarnikar, Vojtech Huser

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Evaluating the Coverage of the HL7AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2020
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. CDISC SHARE, a Global, Cloud-based Resource of Machine-Readable CDISC Standards for Clinical and Translational Research.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2018
    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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Sam HumeDakota State University, College of Business and Information Systems, 820 N Washington Ave, Madison, SD 57042, United States. Electronic address: swhume@gmail.com.
Jozef AertsFH Joanneum University of Applied Sciences, Eggenberger Allee 11, 8020 Graz, Austria. Electronic address: jozef.aerts@fh-joanneum.at.
Surendra SarnikarDakota State University, College of Business and Information Systems, 820 N Washington Ave, Madison, SD 57042, United States. Electronic address: surendra.sarnikar@dsu.edu.
Vojtech HuserLister Hill National Center for Biomedical Communications, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bld 38a, Rm 9N919, Bethesda, MD 20894, United States. Electronic address: vojtech.huser@nih.gov.
Dakota State University · USFH JOANNEUM University of Applied Sciences · ATNational Institutes of Health · US

Funding

Intramural NIH HHS Z99 LM999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIn order to further advance research and development on the Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium (CDISC) Operational Data Model (ODM) standard, the existing research must be well understood. This paper presents a methodological review of the ODM literature. Specifically, it develops a classification schema to categorize the ODM literature according to how the standard has been applied within the clinical research data lifecycle. This paper suggests areas for future research and development that address ODM's limitations and capitalize on its strengths to support new trends in clinical research informatics.

methodsA systematic scan of the following databases was performed: (1) ABI/Inform, (2) ACM Digital, (3) AIS eLibrary, (4) Europe Central PubMed, (5) Google Scholar, (5) IEEE Xplore, (7) PubMed, and (8) ScienceDirect. A Web of Science citation analysis was also performed. The search term used on all databases was "CDISC ODM." The two primary inclusion criteria were: (1) the research must examine the use of ODM as an information system solution component, or (2) the research must critically evaluate ODM against a stated solution usage scenario. Out of 2686 articles identified, 266 were included in a title level review, resulting in 183 articles. An abstract review followed, resulting in 121 remaining articles; and after a full text scan 69 articles met the inclusion criteria.

resultsAs the demand for interoperability has increased, ODM has shown remarkable flexibility and has been extended to cover a broad range of data and metadata requirements that reach well beyond ODM's original use cases. This flexibility has yielded research literature that covers a diverse array of topic areas. A classification schema reflecting the use of ODM within the clinical research data lifecycle was created to provide a categorized and consolidated view of the ODM literature. The elements of the framework include: (1) EDC (Electronic Data Capture) and EHR (Electronic Health Record) infrastructure; (2) planning; (3) data collection; (4) data tabulations and analysis; and (5) study archival. The analysis reviews the strengths and limitations of ODM as a solution component within each section of the classification schema. This paper also identifies opportunities for future ODM research and development, including improved mechanisms for semantic alignment with external terminologies, better representation of the CDISC standards used end-to-end across the clinical research data lifecycle, improved support for real-time data exchange, the use of EHRs for research, and the inclusion of a complete study design.

conclusionsODM is being used in ways not originally anticipated, and covers a diverse array of use cases across the clinical research data lifecycle. ODM has been used as much as a study metadata standard as it has for data exchange. A significant portion of the literature addresses integrating EHR and clinical research data. The simplicity and readability of ODM has likely contributed to its success and broad implementation as a data and metadata standard. Keeping the core ODM model focused on the most fundamental use cases, while using extensions to handle edge cases, has kept the standard easy for developers to learn and use.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsBiomedical ResearchClinical Trials as TopicComputer SystemsDatabase Management SystemsData CollectionElectronic Health RecordsHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalProgramming LanguagesReproducibility of ResultsSemanticsCDISCClinical trialDefine-XMLEHRInteroperabilityODM

Identifiers

PMID26944737
PMCPMC4837012
OpenAlexW2288613508

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.