Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34001121›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2021

Pragmatic MDR: a metadata repository with bottom-up standardization of medical metadata through reuse.

Stefan Hegselmann, Michael Storck, Sophia Gessner, Philipp Neuhaus, Julian Varghese, Philipp Bruland, Alexandra Meidt, Cornelia Mertens, Sarah Riepenhausen, Sonja Baier and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

14 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Stefan HegselmannInstitute of Medical Informatics, University of Münster, Münster, Germany. stefan.hegselmann@uni-muenster.de.ORCID 0000-0002-2145-3258
Michael StorckInstitute of Medical Informatics, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
Sophia GessnerInstitute of Medical Informatics, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
Philipp NeuhausInstitute of Medical Informatics, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
Julian VargheseInstitute of Medical Informatics, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
Philipp BrulandUniversity of Applied Sciences Ostwestfalen-Lippe, Lemgo, Germany.
Alexandra MeidtInstitute of Medical Informatics, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
Cornelia MertensInstitute of Medical Informatics, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
Sarah RiepenhausenInstitute of Medical Informatics, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
Sonja BaierCentre for Clinical Trials, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
Benedikt StöckerCentre for Clinical Trials, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
Jörg HenkeInstitute of Community Medicine, University Medicine of Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.
Carsten Oliver SchmidtInstitute of Community Medicine, University Medicine of Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.
Martin DugasInstitute of Medical Informatics, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
University of Münster · DEUniversitätsmedizin Greifswald · DEOstwestfalen-Lippe University of Applied Sciences and Arts · DE

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft DU 352/11-1Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft DU 352/11-2
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe variety of medical documentation often leads to incompatible data elements that impede data integration between institutions. A common approach to standardize and distribute metadata definitions are ISO/IEC 11179 norm-compliant metadata repositories with top-down standardization. To the best of our knowledge, however, it is not yet common practice to reuse the content of publicly accessible metadata repositories for creation of case report forms or routine documentation. We suggest an alternative concept called pragmatic metadata repository, which enables a community-driven bottom-up approach for agreeing on data collection models. A pragmatic metadata repository collects real-world documentation and considers frequent metadata definitions as high quality with potential for reuse.

methodsWe implemented a pragmatic metadata repository proof of concept application and filled it with medical forms from the Portal of Medical Data Models. We applied this prototype in two use cases to demonstrate its capabilities for reusing metadata: first, integration into a study editor for the suggestion of data elements and, second, metadata synchronization between two institutions. Moreover, we evaluated the emergence of bottom-up standards in the prototype and two medical data managers assessed their quality for 24 medical concepts.

resultsThe resulting prototype contained 466,569 unique metadata definitions. Integration into the study editor led to a reuse of 1836 items and item groups. During the metadata synchronization, semantic codes of 4608 data elements were transferred. Our evaluation revealed that for less complex medical concepts weak bottom-up standards could be established. However, more diverse disease-related concepts showed no convergence of data elements due to an enormous heterogeneity of metadata. The survey showed fair agreement (K

conclusionsWe demonstrated the feasibility of the pragmatic metadata repository concept for medical documentation. Applications of the prototype in two use cases suggest that it facilitates the reuse of data elements. Our evaluation showed that bottom-up standardization based on a large collection of real-world metadata can yield useful results. The proposed concept shall not replace existing top-down approaches, rather it complements them by showing what is commonly used in the community to guide other researchers.

Indexed as

DocumentationMetadataHumansReference StandardsSemanticsData integrationISO/IEC 11179Metadata repositoryMetadata standardization

Identifiers

PMID34001121
PMCPMC8130274
OpenAlexW3161366051

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.