Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28912836›Full record

ReviewBioData mining2017

Methods for enhancing the reproducibility of biomedical research findings using electronic health records.

Spiros Denaxas, Kenan Direk, Arturo Gonzalez-Izquierdo, Maria Pikoula, Aylin Cakiroglu, Jason Moore, Harry Hemingway, Liam Smeeth

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BioData mining, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. A Standardized Guideline for Assessing Extracted Electronic Health Records Cohorts: A Scoping Review.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Open Science in Emergency Medicine Research.Annals of emergency medicine · 2020
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. UK phenomics platform for developing and validating electronic health record phenotypes: CALIBER.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2019
    Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

8 authors.

Spiros DenaxasInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, 222 Euston Road, London, NW1 2DA UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9612-7791
Kenan DirekInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, 222 Euston Road, London, NW1 2DA UK.
Arturo Gonzalez-IzquierdoInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, 222 Euston Road, London, NW1 2DA UK.
Maria PikoulaInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, 222 Euston Road, London, NW1 2DA UK.
Aylin CakirogluThe Francis Crick Institute, 1 Midland Road, London, NW1 1AT UK.
Jason MooreInstitute of Biomedical Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, Richards Medical Research Laboratories, 3700 Hamilton Walk, Philadelphia, 19104 USA.
Harry HemingwayInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, 222 Euston Road, London, NW1 2DA UK.
Liam SmeethEHR Research Group, Department of Non-communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Streeet, London, WC1E 7HT UK.

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0407-10314Medical Research Council MR/K006584/1Wellcome Trust FC001110
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe ability of external investigators to reproduce published scientific findings is critical for the evaluation and validation of biomedical research by the wider community. However, a substantial proportion of health research using electronic health records (EHR), data collected and generated during clinical care, is potentially not reproducible mainly due to the fact that the implementation details of most data preprocessing, cleaning, phenotyping and analysis approaches are not systematically made available or shared. With the complexity, volume and variety of electronic health record data sources made available for research steadily increasing, it is critical to ensure that scientific findings from EHR data are reproducible and replicable by researchers. Reporting guidelines, such as RECORD and STROBE, have set a solid foundation by recommending a series of items for researchers to include in their research outputs. Researchers however often lack the technical tools and methodological approaches to actuate such recommendations in an efficient and sustainable manner.

resultsIn this paper, we review and propose a series of methods and tools utilized in adjunct scientific disciplines that can be used to enhance the reproducibility of research using electronic health records and enable researchers to report analytical approaches in a transparent manner. Specifically, we discuss the adoption of scientific software engineering principles and best-practices such as test-driven development, source code revision control systems, literate programming and the standardization and re-use of common data management and analytical approaches.

conclusionThe adoption of such approaches will enable scientists to systematically document and share EHR analytical workflows and increase the reproducibility of biomedical research using such complex data sources.

Indexed as

Biomedical researchElectronic health recordsReproducibilityTransparency

Identifiers

PMID28912836
PMCPMC5594436

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.