Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34652278›Full record

ReviewJMIR medical informatics2021

Data Anonymization for Pervasive Health Care: Systematic Literature Mapping Study.

Zheming Zuo, Matthew Watson, David Budgen, Robert Hall, Chris Kennelly, Noura Al Moubayed

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  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

6 authors.

Zheming ZuoDepartment of Computer Science, Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1576-0865
Matthew WatsonDepartment of Computer Science, Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6375-3905
David BudgenDepartment of Computer Science, Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7143-0241
Robert HallCievert Ltd, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3410-1817
Chris KennellyCievert Ltd, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0339-2866
Noura Al MoubayedDepartment of Computer Science, Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8942-355X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundData science offers an unparalleled opportunity to identify new insights into many aspects of human life with recent advances in health care. Using data science in digital health raises significant challenges regarding data privacy, transparency, and trustworthiness. Recent regulations enforce the need for a clear legal basis for collecting, processing, and sharing data, for example, the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (2016) and the United Kingdom's Data Protection Act (2018). For health care providers, legal use of the electronic health record (EHR) is permitted only in clinical care cases. Any other use of the data requires thoughtful considerations of the legal context and direct patient consent. Identifiable personal and sensitive information must be sufficiently anonymized. Raw data are commonly anonymized to be used for research purposes, with risk assessment for reidentification and utility. Although health care organizations have internal policies defined for information governance, there is a significant lack of practical tools and intuitive guidance about the use of data for research and modeling. Off-the-shelf data anonymization tools are developed frequently, but privacy-related functionalities are often incomparable with regard to use in different problem domains. In addition, tools to support measuring the risk of the anonymized data with regard to reidentification against the usefulness of the data exist, but there are question marks over their efficacy.

objectiveIn this systematic literature mapping study, we aim to alleviate the aforementioned issues by reviewing the landscape of data anonymization for digital health care.

methodsWe used Google Scholar, Web of Science, Elsevier Scopus, and PubMed to retrieve academic studies published in English up to June 2020. Noteworthy gray literature was also used to initialize the search. We focused on review questions covering 5 bottom-up aspects: basic anonymization operations, privacy models, reidentification risk and usability metrics, off-the-shelf anonymization tools, and the lawful basis for EHR data anonymization.

resultsWe identified 239 eligible studies, of which 60 were chosen for general background information; 16 were selected for 7 basic anonymization operations; 104 covered 72 conventional and machine learning-based privacy models; four and 19 papers included seven and 15 metrics, respectively, for measuring the reidentification risk and degree of usability; and 36 explored 20 data anonymization software tools. In addition, we also evaluated the practical feasibility of performing anonymization on EHR data with reference to their usability in medical decision-making. Furthermore, we summarized the lawful basis for delivering guidance on practical EHR data anonymization.

conclusionsThis systematic literature mapping study indicates that anonymization of EHR data is theoretically achievable; yet, it requires more research efforts in practical implementations to balance privacy preservation and usability to ensure more reliable health care applications.

Indexed as

anonymizationdata scienceDPA 2018EHRGDPRhealthcareprivacy-preservingreidentification riskSLMusability

Identifiers

PMID34652278
PMCPMC8556642

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.