ArticleYearbook of medical informatics2016
Clinical Research Informatics Contributions from 2015.
Article in Yearbook of medical informatics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Citizens, Research Ethics Committee Members and Researchers' Attitude Toward Information and Consent for the Secondary Use of Health Data: Implications for Research Within Learning Health Systems.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2021Article
- Informed consent within a learning health system: A scoping review.Learning health systems · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo summarize key contributions to current research in the field of Clinical Research Informatics (CRI) and to select best papers published in 2015.
methodA bibliographic search using a combination of MeSH and free terms search over PubMed on Clinical Research Informatics (CRI) was performed followed by a double-blind review in order to select a list of candidate best papers to be then peer-reviewed by external reviewers. A consensus meeting between the two section editors and the editorial team was finally organized to conclude on the selection of best papers.
resultsAmong the 579 returned papers published in the past year in the various areas of Clinical Research Informatics (CRI) - i) methods supporting clinical research, ii) data sharing and interoperability, iii) re-use of healthcare data for research, iv) patient recruitment and engagement, v) data privacy, security and regulatory issues and vi) policy and perspectives - the full review process selected four best papers. The first selected paper evaluates the capability of the Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium (CDISC) Operational Data Model (ODM) to support the representation of case report forms (in both the design stage and with patient level data) during a complete clinical study lifecycle. The second selected paper describes a prototype for secondary use of electronic health records data captured in non-standardized text. The third selected paper presents a privacy preserving electronic health record linkage tool and the last selected paper describes how big data use in US relies on access to health information governed by varying and often misunderstood legal requirements and ethical considerations.
conclusionsA major trend in the 2015 publications is the analysis of observational, "nonexperimental" information and the potential biases and confounding factors hidden in the data that will have to be carefully taken into account to validate new predictive models. In addiction, researchers have to understand complicated and sometimes contradictory legal requirements and to consider ethical obligations in order to balance privacy and promoting discovery.
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.