Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34100760›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2021

Secondary Use of Clinical Data in Data-Gathering, Non-Interventional Research or Learning Activities: Definition, Types, and a Framework for Risk Assessment.

Martin Jungkunz, Anja Köngeter, Katja Mehlis, Eva C Winkler, Christoph Schickhardt

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. [Re-identification potential of structured health data].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2024
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Martin JungkunzSection for Translational Medical Ethics, Department of Medical Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1891-9790
Anja KöngeterSection for Translational Medical Ethics, Department of Medical Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0459-5059
Katja MehlisSection for Translational Medical Ethics, Department of Medical Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6532-9876
Eva C WinklerSection for Translational Medical Ethics, Department of Medical Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7460-0154
Christoph SchickhardtSection for Translational Medical Ethics, National Center for Tumor Diseases, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2038-1456
Heidelberg University · DEGerman Cancer Research Center · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe secondary use of clinical data in data-gathering, non-interventional research or learning activities (SeConts) has great potential for scientific progress and health care improvement. At the same time, it poses relevant risks for the privacy and informational self-determination of patients whose data are used.

objectiveSince the current literature lacks a tailored framework for risk assessment in SeConts as well as a clarification of the concept and practical scope of SeConts, we aim to fill this gap.

methodsIn this study, we analyze each element of the concept of SeConts to provide a synthetic definition, investigate the practical relevance and scope of SeConts through a literature review, and operationalize the widespread definition of risk (as a harmful event of a certain magnitude that occurs with a certain probability) to conduct a tailored analysis of privacy risk factors typically implied in SeConts.

resultsWe offer a conceptual clarification and definition of SeConts and provide a list of types of research and learning activities that can be subsumed under the definition of SeConts. We also offer a proposal for the classification of SeConts types into the categories non-interventional (observational) clinical research, quality control and improvement, or public health research. In addition, we provide a list of risk factors that determine the probability or magnitude of harm implied in SeConts. The risk factors provide a framework for assessing the privacy-related risks for patients implied in SeConts. We illustrate the use of risk assessment by applying it to a concrete example.

conclusionsIn the future, research ethics committees and data use and access committees will be able to rely on and apply the framework offered here when reviewing projects of secondary use of clinical data for learning and research purposes.

Indexed as

Ethics Committees, ResearchPrivacyHumansLearningPublic HealthRisk Assessmentclinical dataelectronic health recordsethicspatient dataprivacyresearchrisk assessmentrisk factorsriskssecondary use

Identifiers

PMID34100760
PMCPMC8241435
OpenAlexW3171864335

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.