Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30127646›Full record

ArticleClinical epidemiology2018

CDEGenerator: an online platform to learn from existing data models to build model registries.

Julian Varghese, Michael Fujarski, Stefan Hegselmann, Philipp Neuhaus, Martin Dugas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical epidemiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

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

  1. Understanding the Nature of Metadata: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Artificial Intelligence and Personalized Medicine.Cancer treatment and research · 2019
    Article
  10. 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

5 authors.

Julian VargheseInstitute of Medical Informatics, University of Münster, Julian.Varghese@uni-muenster.de.
Michael FujarskiFaculty of Mathematics and Computer Sciences, University of Münster.
Stefan HegselmannInstitute of Medical Informatics, University of Münster, Julian.Varghese@uni-muenster.de.
Philipp NeuhausInstitute of Medical Informatics, University of Münster, Julian.Varghese@uni-muenster.de.
Martin DugasInstitute of Medical Informatics, University of Münster, Julian.Varghese@uni-muenster.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveBest-practice data models harmonize semantics and data structure of medical variables in clinical or epidemiological studies. While there exist several published data sets, it remains challenging to find and reuse published eligibility criteria or other data items that match specific needs of a newly planned study or registry. A novel Internet-based method for rapid comparison of published data models was implemented to enable reuse, customization, and harmonization of item catalogs for the early planning and development phase of research databases.

methodsBased on prior work, a European information infrastructure with a large collection of medical data models was established. A newly developed analysis module called CDEGenerator provides systematic comparison of selected data models and user-tailored creation of minimum data sets or harmonized item catalogs. Usability was assessed by eight external medical documentation experts in a workshop by the umbrella organization for networked medical research in Germany with the System Usability Scale.

resultsThe analysis and item-tailoring module provides multilingual comparisons of semantically complex eligibility criteria of clinical trials. The System Usability Scale yielded "good usability" (mean 75.0, range 65.0-92.5). User-tailored models can be exported to several data formats, such as XLS, REDCap or Operational Data Model by the Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium, which is supported by the US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency for metadata exchange of clinical studies.

conclusionThe online tool provides user-friendly methods to reuse, compare, and thus learn from data items of standardized or published models to design a blueprint for a harmonized research database.

Indexed as

common data elementsmetadata repositoriessemantic interoperabilityUnified Medical Language System

Identifiers

PMID30127646
PMCPMC6089100

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.