ReviewCurrent opinion in pediatrics2017
Big and disparate data: considerations for pediatric consortia.
Review in Current opinion in pediatrics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Epidemiologic Advances Generated by the Human Health Exposure Analysis Resource Program.Current epidemiology reports · 2023Article
- Phenotype Harmonization in the GLIDE2 Oral Health Genomics Consortium.Journal of dental research · 2022Article
- Human Health Exposure Analysis Resource (HHEAR): A model for incorporating the exposome into health studies.International journal of hygiene and environmental health · 2021Review
- Machine Learning Within Studies of Early-Life Environmental Exposures and Child Health: Review of the Current Literature and Discussion of Next Steps.Current environmental health reports · 2020Review
- Learning from electronic health records across multiple sites: A communication-efficient and privacy-preserving distributed algorithm.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2020Article
- The RA-MAP Consortium: a working model for academia-industry collaboration.Nature reviews. Rheumatology · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purpose of reviewIncreasingly, there is a need for examining exposure disease associations in large, diverse datasets to understand the complex determinants of pediatric disease and disability. Recognizing that children's health research consortia will be important sources of big data, it is crucial for the pediatric research community to be knowledgeable about the challenges and opportunities that they will face. The present review will provide examples of existing children's health consortia, highlight recent pooled analyses conducted by children's health research consortia, address common challenges of pooled analyses, and provide recommendations to advance collective research efforts in pediatric research. RECENT
findingsFormal consortia and other collective-science initiatives are increasingly being created to share individual data from a set of relevant epidemiological studies to address a common research topic under the concept that the joint effort of many individual groups can accomplish far more than working alone. There are practical challenges to the participation of investigators within consortia that need to be addressed in order for them to work. SUMMARY: Researchers who access consortia with data centers will be able to go far beyond their initial hypotheses and potentially accomplish research that was previously thought infeasible or too costly.
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.