ArticleJMIR research protocols2020
A Systematic Framework for Analyzing Observation Data in Patient-Centered Registries: Case Study for Patients With Depression.
Article in JMIR research protocols, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient-centered registries are essential in population-based clinical care for patient identification and monitoring of outcomes. Although registry data may be used in real time for patient care, the same data may further be used for secondary analysis to assess disease burden, evaluation of disease management and health care services, and research. The design of a registry has major implications for the ability to effectively use these clinical data in research.
objectiveThis study aims to develop a systematic framework to address the data and methodological issues involved in analyzing data in clinically designed patient-centered registries.
methodsThe systematic framework was composed of 3 major components: visualizing the multifaceted and heterogeneous patient-centered registries using a data flow diagram, assessing and managing data quality issues, and identifying patient cohorts for addressing specific research questions.
resultsUsing a clinical registry designed as a part of a collaborative care program for adults with depression at Mayo Clinic, we were able to demonstrate the impact of the proposed framework on data integrity. By following the data cleaning and refining procedures of the framework, we were able to generate high-quality data that were available for research questions about the coordination and management of depression in a primary care setting. We describe the steps involved in converting clinically collected data into a viable research data set using registry cohorts of depressed adults to assess the impact on high-cost service use.
conclusionsThe systematic framework discussed in this study sheds light on the existing inconsistency and data quality issues in patient-centered registries. This study provided a step-by-step procedure for addressing these challenges and for generating high-quality data for both quality improvement and research that may enhance care and outcomes for patients. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/18366.
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.