Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30157521›Full record

ReviewYearbook of medical informatics2018

Clinical Research Informatics: Contributions from 2017.

Christel Daniel, Dipak Kalra, Section Editors for the IMIA Yearbook Section on Clinical Research Informatics

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Yearbook of medical informatics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Christel DanielAP-HP Direction of Information Systems, Paris, France.
Dipak KalraUniversity of Gent, Belgium.
Section Editors for the IMIA Yearbook Section on Clinical Research Informatics

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo summarize key contributions to current research in the field of Clinical Research Informatics (CRI) and to select best papers published in 2017.

methodA bibliographic search using a combination of MeSH descriptors and free terms on CRI was performed using PubMed, 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 organized to finally conclude on the selection of best papers.

resultsAmong the 741 returned papers published in 2017 in the various areas of CRI, the full review process selected five best papers. The first best paper reports on the implementation of consent management considering patient preferences for the use of de-identified data of electronic health records for research. The second best paper describes an approach using natural language processing to extract symptoms of severe mental illness from clinical text. The authors of the third best paper describe the challenges and lessons learned when leveraging the EHR4CR platform to support patient inclusion in academic studies in the context of an important collaboration between private industry and public health institutions. The fourth best paper describes a method and an interactive tool for case-crossover analyses of electronic medical records for patient safety. The last best paper proposes a new method for bias reduction in association studies using electronic health records data.

conclusionsResearch in the CRI field continues to accelerate and to mature, leading to tools and platforms deployed at national or international scales with encouraging results. Beyond securing these new platforms for exploiting large-scale health data, another major challenge is the limitation of biases related to the use of "real-world" data. Controlling these biases is a prerequisite for the development of learning health systems.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchInformation DisseminationInformed ConsentMedical InformaticsElectronic Health RecordsHumansPeer Review

Identifiers

PMID30157521
PMCPMC6115209

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.