Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32838295›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics: X2020

Interoperability of population-based patient registries.

Nicholas Nicholson, Andrea Perego

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomedical informatics: X, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Article
  4. 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

2 authors.

Nicholas NicholsonEuropean Commission Joint Research Centre, Italy.
Andrea PeregoEuropean Commission Joint Research Centre, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Enabling full interoperability within and between population-based patient-registry domains would open up access to a rich and unique source of health data for secondary data usage. Previous attempts to tackle patient-registry interoperability have met with varying degrees of success, but a unifying solution remains elusive. The purpose of this paper is to show by practical example how a solution is attainable via the implementation of an existing framework based of the concept of federated, semantic metadata registries. One important feature motivating the use of this framework is that it can be implemented gradually and independently within each patient-registry domain. By employing linked open data principles, the framework extends the ISO/IEC 11179 standard to provide both syntactic and semantic interoperability of data elements with the means of specifying automated extraction scripts for retrieval of data from different registry content models. The examples provided address the domain of European population-based cancer registries to demonstrate the feasibility of the approach. One of the examples shows how quick gains are derivable by allowing retrieval of aggregated core data sets. The other examples show how aggregated full sets of data and record-level data might also be retrieved from each local registry. An infrastructure of patient-registry domains adhering to the principles of the framework would provide the semantic contexts and inter-linkage of data necessary for automated search and retrieval of registry data. It would thereby also lay the foundation for making registry data serviceable to artificial intelligence (AI) applications.

Indexed as

Federated semantic metadata registry frameworkInteroperabilityISO/IEC 11179Linked Open DataPopulation-based patient registries

Identifiers

PMID32838295
PMCPMC7293468

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.