Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27875988›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2016

Common data elements for secondary use of electronic health record data for clinical trial execution and serious adverse event reporting.

Philipp Bruland, Mark McGilchrist, Eric Zapletal, Dionisio Acosta, Johann Proeve, Scott Askin, Thomas Ganslandt, Justin Doods, Martin Dugas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Analyzing Real-World Use of Research Common Data Elements.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2018
    Article
  18. Clinical Research Informatics: Contributions from 2016.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2017
    Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

9 authors.

Philipp BrulandInstitute of Medical Informatics, University of Münster, Münster, 48149, Germany. philipp.bruland@uni-muenster.de.ORCID 0000-0001-6939-7630
Mark McGilchristUniversity of Dundee, Dundee, DD2 4BF, UK.
Eric ZapletalDépartement d'Informatique Hospitalière, AP-HP, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Paris, 75015, France.
Dionisio AcostaCHIME, Institute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, NW1 2DA, UK.
Johann ProevePreviously Bayer Healthcare, Building K9, Leverkusen, 51368, Germany.
Scott AskinNovartis Pharma AG, Basel, 4002, Switzerland.
Thomas GanslandtChair of Medical Informatics, University of Erlangen/Nuremberg, Erlangen, 91054, Germany.
Justin DoodsInstitute of Medical Informatics, University of Münster, Münster, 48149, Germany.
Martin DugasInstitute of Medical Informatics, University of Münster, Münster, 48149, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundData capture is one of the most expensive phases during the conduct of a clinical trial and the increasing use of electronic health records (EHR) offers significant savings to clinical research. To facilitate these secondary uses of routinely collected patient data, it is beneficial to know what data elements are captured in clinical trials. Therefore our aim here is to determine the most commonly used data elements in clinical trials and their availability in hospital EHR systems.

methodsCase report forms for 23 clinical trials in differing disease areas were analyzed. Through an iterative and consensus-based process of medical informatics professionals from academia and trial experts from the European pharmaceutical industry, data elements were compiled for all disease areas and with special focus on the reporting of adverse events. Afterwards, data elements were identified and statistics acquired from hospital sites providing data to the EHR4CR project.

resultsThe analysis identified 133 unique data elements. Fifty elements were congruent with a published data inventory for patient recruitment and 83 new elements were identified for clinical trial execution, including adverse event reporting. Demographic and laboratory elements lead the list of available elements in hospitals EHR systems. For the reporting of serious adverse events only very few elements could be identified in the patient records.

conclusionsCommon data elements in clinical trials have been identified and their availability in hospital systems elucidated. Several elements, often those related to reimbursement, are frequently available whereas more specialized elements are ranked at the bottom of the data inventory list. Hospitals that want to obtain the benefits of reusing data for research from their EHR are now able to prioritize their efforts based on this common data element list.

Indexed as

Common Data ElementsAdverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsBiomedical ResearchClinical Trials as TopicElectronic Health RecordsEuropeHealth Information ExchangeHospital RecordsHumansMedical InformaticsResearch DesignClinical trialsCommon data elementsData qualityElectronic health recordsMetadataSecondary use

Identifiers

PMID27875988
PMCPMC5118882

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.