Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27563683›Full record

ArticleEGEMS (Washington, DC)2016

Collecting, Integrating, and Disseminating Patient-Reported Outcomes for Research in a Learning Healthcare System.

Christopher A Harle, Gloria Lipori, Robert W Hurley

Open access · diamondAbstract 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 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
7.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Clinical Research Informatics: a Decade-in-Review.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2024
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Clinical Research Informatics: Contributions from 2016.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2017
    Review
  11. Finding "truth" across different data sources.Israel journal of health policy research · 2017
    Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Christopher A HarleIndiana University Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health.
Gloria LiporiUF Health.
Robert W HurleyMedical College of Wisconsin.
Medical College of Wisconsin · USRichard M. Fairbanks Foundation · USUniversity of Florida Health · US

Funding

Using social networks to map and evaluate team science across CTSA hubsUL1TR001427 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI MITCHELL, DUANE A. · 2015 to 2024
$37.2M
UF Clinical and Translational Science AwardUL1TR000064 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI NELSON, DAVID R · 2012 to 2014
$12.2M
UF Clinical and Translational Science AwardKL2TR000065 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI NELSON, DAVID R · 2012 to 2014
$1.6M
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR000065NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000064NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001427
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAdvances in health policy, research, and information technology have converged to increase the electronic collection and use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Therefore, it is important to share lessons learned in implementing PROs in research information systems. CASE DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this case study is to describe a novel information system for electronic PROs and lessons learned in implementing that system to support research in an academic health center. The system incorporates freely available and commercial software and involves clinical and research workflows that support the collection, transformation, and research use of PRO data. The software and processes that comprise the system serve three main functions, (i) collecting electronic PROs in clinical care, (ii) integrating PRO data with non-patient generated clinical data, and (iii) disseminating data to researchers through the institution's research informatics infrastructure, including the i2b2 (Informatics for Integrating Biology and the Bedside) system. STRATEGIES: Our successful design and implementation was driven by three overarching strategies. First, we selected and implemented multiple interfaced technologies to support PRO collection, management, and research use. Second, we aimed to use standardized approaches to measuring PROs, sending PROs between systems, and disseminating PROs. Finally, we focused on using technologies and processes that aligned with existing clinical research information management strategies within our organization.

conclusionThese experiences and lessons may help future implementers and researchers enhance the scale and sustainable use of systems for research use of PROs.

Indexed as

Data CollectionElectronic Health RecordsHealth Services ResearchPatient-Centered Outcomes ResearchPatient-Reported OutcomesResearch Informatics

Identifiers

PMID27563683
PMCPMC4975567
OpenAlexW2470649090

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.