Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33528373›Full record

ArticleJMIR research protocols2021

Initiatives, Concepts, and Implementation Practices of FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) Data Principles in Health Data Stewardship Practice: Protocol for a Scoping Review.

Esther Thea Inau, Jean Sack, Dagmar Waltemath, Atinkut Alamirrew Zeleke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR research protocols, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Ten Topics to Get Started in Medical Informatics Research.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Esther Thea InauMedical Informatics, Institute for Community Medicine, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8950-2239
Jean SackInternational Health Department, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9279-2073
Dagmar WaltemathMedical Informatics, Institute for Community Medicine, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5886-5563
Atinkut Alamirrew ZelekeMedical Informatics, Institute for Community Medicine, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7838-9050

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundData stewardship is an essential driver of research and clinical practice. Data collection, storage, access, sharing, and analytics are dependent on the proper and consistent use of data management principles among the investigators. Since 2016, the FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable) guiding principles for research data management have been resonating in scientific communities. Enabling data to be findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable is currently believed to strengthen data sharing, reduce duplicated efforts, and move toward harmonization of data from heterogeneous unconnected data silos. FAIR initiatives and implementation trends are rising in different facets of scientific domains. It is important to understand the concepts and implementation practices of the FAIR data principles as applied to human health data by studying the flourishing initiatives and implementation lessons relevant to improved health research, particularly for data sharing during the coronavirus pandemic.

objectiveThis paper aims to conduct a scoping review to identify concepts, approaches, implementation experiences, and lessons learned in FAIR initiatives in the health data domain.

methodsThe Arksey and O'Malley stage-based methodological framework for scoping reviews will be used for this review. PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar will be searched to access relevant primary and grey publications. Articles written in English and published from 2014 onwards with FAIR principle concepts or practices in the health domain will be included. Duplication among the 3 data sources will be removed using a reference management software. The articles will then be exported to a systematic review management software. At least two independent authors will review the eligibility of each article based on defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. A pretested charting tool will be used to extract relevant information from the full-text papers. Qualitative thematic synthesis analysis methods will be employed by coding and developing themes. Themes will be derived from the research questions and contents in the included papers.

resultsThe results will be reported using the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) reporting guidelines. We anticipate finalizing the manuscript for this work in 2021.

conclusionsWe believe comprehensive information about the FAIR data principles, initiatives, implementation practices, and lessons learned in the FAIRification process in the health domain is paramount to supporting both evidence-based clinical practice and research transparency in the era of big data and open research publishing. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/22505.

Indexed as

data stewardshipFAIR data principleshealth researchPRISMAscoping review

Identifiers

PMID33528373
PMCPMC7886612

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.