Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34636733›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2021

Common Data Elements for Meaningful Stroke Documentation in Routine Care and Clinical Research: Retrospective Data Analysis.

Sarah Berenspöhler, Jens Minnerup, Martin Dugas, Julian Varghese

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Sarah BerenspöhlerInstitute of Medical Informatics, Westfälische Wilhelms-University Münster, Münster, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6986-9447
Jens MinnerupDepartment of Neurology with Institute of Translational Neurology, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0382-5759
Martin DugasInstitute of Medical Informatics, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9740-0788
Julian VargheseInstitute of Medical Informatics, Westfälische Wilhelms-University Münster, Münster, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7206-3719

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedical information management for stroke patients is currently a very time-consuming endeavor. There are clear guidelines and procedures to treat patients having acute stroke, but it is not known how well these established practices are reflected in patient documentation.

objectiveThis study compares a variety of documentation processes regarding stroke. The main objective of this work is to provide an overview of the most commonly occurring medical concepts in stroke documentation and identify overlaps between different documentation contexts to allow for the definition of a core data set that could be used in potential data interfaces.

methodsMedical source documentation forms from different documentation contexts, including hospitals, clinical trials, registries, and international standards, regarding stroke treatment followed by rehabilitation were digitized in the operational data model. Each source data element was semantically annotated using the Unified Medical Language System. The concept codes were analyzed for semantic overlaps. A concept was considered common if it appeared in at least two documentation contexts. The resulting common concepts were extended with implementation details, including data types and permissible values based on frequent patterns of source data elements, using an established expert-based and semiautomatic approach.

resultsIn total, 3287 data elements were identified, and 1051 of these emerged as unique medical concepts. The 100 most frequent medical concepts cover 9.51% (100/1051) of all concept occurrences in stroke documentation, and the 50 most frequent concepts cover 4.75% (50/1051). A list of common data elements was implemented in different standardized machine-readable formats on a public metadata repository for interoperable reuse.

conclusionsStandardization of medical documentation is a prerequisite for data exchange as well as the transferability and reuse of data. In the long run, standardization would save time and money and extend the capabilities for which such data could be used. In the context of this work, a lack of standardization was observed regarding current information management. Free-form text fields and intricate questions complicate automated data access and transfer between institutions. This work also revealed the potential of a unified documentation process as a core data set of the 50 most frequent common data elements, accounting for 34% of the documentation in medical information management. Such a data set offers a starting point for standardized and interoperable data collection in routine care, quality management, and clinical research.

Indexed as

common data elementsdocumentationstroke

Identifiers

PMID34636733
PMCPMC8548969

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.