Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27141519›Full record

ArticleEGEMS (Washington, DC)2016

Extracting Electronic Health Record Data in a Practice-Based Research Network: Processes to Support Translational Research across Diverse Practice Organizations.

Allison M Cole, Kari A Stephens, Gina A Keppel, Hossein Estiri, Laura-Mae Baldwin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EGEMS (Washington, DC), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Exploring completeness in clinical data research networks with DQe-c.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 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

5 authors.

Allison M ColeUniversity of Washington, Institute of Translational Health Sciences.
Kari A StephensUniversity of Washington, Institute of Translational Health Sciences.
Gina A KeppelUniversity of Washington, Institute of Translational Health Sciences.
Hossein EstiriUniversity of Washington, Institute of Translational Health Sciences.
Laura-Mae BaldwinUniversity of Washington, Institute of Translational Health Sciences.

Funding

Transform Dissemination and Implementation Science in CTSA ProgramsUL1TR002319 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI John K. Amory · 2017 to 2026
$100.0M
INSTITUTE FOR TRANSLATIONAL HEALTH SCIENCE (UL1): BPCAUL1RR025014 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI DISIS, MARY L. · 2007 to 2011
$51.5M
Institute of Translational Health SciencesUL1TR000423 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI DISIS, MARY L. · 2012 to 2016
$49.4M
Pharmacogenetics in Rural and Underserved PopulationsU01GM092676 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI BURKE, WYLIE G., THUMMEL, KENNETH E. · 2010 to 2014
$9.9M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000423NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002319NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR025014NIGMS NIH HHS U01 GM092676
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextThe widespread adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) offers significant opportunities to conduct research with clinical data from patients outside traditional academic research settings. Because EHRs are designed primarily for clinical care and billing, significant challenges are inherent in the use of EHR data for clinical and translational research. Efficient processes are needed for translational researchers to overcome these challenges. The Data QUEST Coordinating Center (DQCC), which oversees Data Query Extraction Standardization Translation (Data QUEST) - a primary-care, EHR data-sharing infrastructure - created processes that guide EHR data extraction for clinical and translational research across these diverse practices. We describe these processes and their application in a case example. CASE DESCRIPTION: The DQCC process for developing EHR data extractions not only supports researchers' access to EHR data, but supports this access for the purpose of answering scientific questions. This process requires complex coordination across multiple domains, including the following: (1) understanding the context of EHR data; (2) creating and maintaining a governance structure to support exchange of EHR data; and (3) defining data parameters that are used in order to extract data from the EHR. We use the Northwest-Alaska Pharmacogenomics Research Network (NWA-PGRN) as a case example that focuses on pharmacogenomic discovery and clinical applications to describe the DQCC process. The NWA-PGRN collaborates with Data QUEST to explore ways to leverage primary-care EHR data to support pharmacogenomics research.

findingsPreliminary analysis on the case example shows that initial decisions about how researchers define the study population can influence study outcomes. MAJOR THEMES AND

conclusionsThe experience of the DQCC demonstrates that coordinating centers provide expertise in helping researchers understand the context of EHR data, create and maintain governance structures, and guide the definition of parameters for data extractions. This expertise is critical to supporting research with EHR data. Replication of these strategies through coordinating centers may lead to more efficient translational research. Investigators must also consider the impact of initial decisions in defining study groups that may potentially affect outcomes.

Indexed as

electronic health recordsgovernanceprimary care

Identifiers

PMID27141519
PMCPMC4827782

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.