Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35061834›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

A data flow process for confidential data and its application in a health research project.

Samantha S R Crossfield, Kieran Zucker, Paul Baxter, Penny Wright, Jon Fistein, Alex F Markham, Mark Birkin, Adam W Glaser, Geoff Hall

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

9 authors.

Samantha S R CrossfieldLeeds Institute for Data Analytics, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7337-3527
Kieran ZuckerLeeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4385-3153
Paul BaxterLeeds Institute of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Penny WrightLeeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Jon FisteinLeeds Institute for Data Analytics, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Alex F MarkhamLeeds Institute for Data Analytics, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Mark BirkinLeeds Institute for Data Analytics, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Adam W GlaserLeeds Institute for Data Analytics, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Geoff HallLeeds Institute for Data Analytics, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/L01629X/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of linked healthcare data in research has the potential to make major contributions to knowledge generation and service improvement. However, using healthcare data for secondary purposes raises legal and ethical concerns relating to confidentiality, privacy and data protection rights. Using a linkage and anonymisation approach that processes data lawfully and in line with ethical best practice to create an anonymous (non-personal) dataset can address these concerns, yet there is no set approach for defining all of the steps involved in such data flow end-to-end. We aimed to define such an approach with clear steps for dataset creation, and to describe its utilisation in a case study linking healthcare data.

methodsWe developed a data flow protocol that generates pseudonymous datasets that can be reversibly linked, or irreversibly linked to form an anonymous research dataset. It was designed and implemented by the Comprehensive Patient Records (CPR) study in Leeds, UK.

resultsWe defined a clear approach that received ethico-legal approval for use in creating an anonymous research dataset. Our approach used individual-level linkage through a mechanism that is not computer-intensive and was rendered irreversible to both data providers and processors. We successfully applied it in the CPR study to hospital and general practice and community electronic health record data from two providers, along with patient reported outcomes, for 365,193 patients. The resultant anonymous research dataset is available via DATA-CAN, the Health Data Research Hub for Cancer in the UK.

conclusionsThrough ethical, legal and academic review, we believe that we contribute a defined approach that represents a framework that exceeds current minimum standards for effective pseudonymisation and anonymisation. This paper describes our methods and provides supporting information to facilitate the use of this approach in research.

Indexed as

ConfidentialityData AnonymizationBiomedical ResearchDatasets as TopicElectronic Data ProcessingElectronic Health RecordsHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID35061834
PMCPMC8782367

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.