Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27435944›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of medical informatics2016

Implementing partnership-driven clinical federated electronic health record data sharing networks.

Kari A Stephens, Nicholas Anderson, Ching-Ping Lin, Hossein Estiri

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of medical informatics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 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
  9. DQEGEMS (Washington, DC) · 2017
    Article
  10. 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.

Kari A StephensDepartment of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, Box 356560, Seattle, WA 98195, United States; Department of Biomedical Informatics & Medical Education, University of Washington, Box 358051, Seattle, WA 98109, United States; Institute of Translational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Box 358051, Seattle, WA 98109, United States. Electronic address: kstephen@uw.edu.
Nicholas AndersonDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of California Davis, Davis, CA 95616, United States.
Ching-Ping LinGlobal REACH, Medical School, University of Michigan, 5113 Medical Science Building I, 1301 Catherine St, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5611, United States.
Hossein EstiriInstitute of Translational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Box 358051, Seattle, WA 98109, United States.

Funding

Institute of Translational Health SciencesUL1TR000423 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI DISIS, MARY L. · 2012 to 2016
$49.4M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000423NHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268200700031C
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveBuilding federated data sharing architectures requires supporting a range of data owners, effective and validated semantic alignment between data resources, and consistent focus on end-users. Establishing these resources requires development methodologies that support internal validation of data extraction and translation processes, sustaining meaningful partnerships, and delivering clear and measurable system utility. We describe findings from two federated data sharing case examples that detail critical factors, shared outcomes, and production environment results.

methodsTwo federated data sharing pilot architectures developed to support network-based research associated with the University of Washington's Institute of Translational Health Sciences provided the basis for the findings. A spiral model for implementation and evaluation was used to structure iterations of development and support knowledge share between the two network development teams, which cross collaborated to support and manage common stages.

resultsWe found that using a spiral model of software development and multiple cycles of iteration was effective in achieving early network design goals. Both networks required time and resource intensive efforts to establish a trusted environment to create the data sharing architectures. Both networks were challenged by the need for adaptive use cases to define and test utility.

conclusionAn iterative cyclical model of development provided a process for developing trust with data partners and refining the design, and supported measureable success in the development of new federated data sharing architectures.

Indexed as

Computer Communication NetworksCooperative BehaviorElectronic Health RecordsModels, OrganizationalSoftwareDatabases as TopicHumansInformation DisseminationInformation Storage and RetrievalUnited StatesUser-Computer InterfaceData sharingElectronic health recordsFederated networksImplementationInformation systems

Identifiers

PMID27435944
PMCPMC6790180

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.