Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35289755›Full record

ArticleJMIR human factors2022

Concept Libraries for Repeatable and Reusable Research: Qualitative Study Exploring the Needs of Users.

Zahra Almowil, Shang-Ming Zhou, Sinead Brophy, Jodie Croxall

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR human factors, 2022. 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.

Zahra AlmowilData Science Building, Medical School, Swansea University, Swansea, Wales, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9942-0811
Shang-Ming ZhouCentre For Health Technology, Faculty of Health, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0719-9353
Sinead BrophyData Science Building, Medical School, Swansea University, Swansea, Wales, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7417-2858
Jodie CroxallData Science Building, Medical School, Swansea University, Swansea, Wales, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3277-7503

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBig data research in the field of health sciences is hindered by a lack of agreement on how to identify and define different conditions and their medications. This means that researchers and health professionals often have different phenotype definitions for the same condition. This lack of agreement makes it difficult to compare different study findings and hinders the ability to conduct repeatable and reusable research.

objectiveThis study aims to examine the requirements of various users, such as researchers, clinicians, machine learning experts, and managers, in the development of a data portal for phenotypes (a concept library).

methodsThis was a qualitative study using interviews and focus group discussion. One-to-one interviews were conducted with researchers, clinicians, machine learning experts, and senior research managers in health data science (N=6) to explore their specific needs in the development of a concept library. In addition, a focus group discussion with researchers (N=14) working with the Secured Anonymized Information Linkage databank, a national eHealth data linkage infrastructure, was held to perform a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis for the phenotyping system and the proposed concept library. The interviews and focus group discussion were transcribed verbatim, and 2 thematic analyses were performed.

resultsMost of the participants thought that the prototype concept library would be a very helpful resource for conducting repeatable research, but they specified that many requirements are needed before its development. Although all the participants stated that they were aware of some existing concept libraries, most of them expressed negative perceptions about them. The participants mentioned several facilitators that would stimulate them to share their work and reuse the work of others, and they pointed out several barriers that could inhibit them from sharing their work and reusing the work of others. The participants suggested some developments that they would like to see to improve reproducible research output using routine data.

conclusionsThe study indicated that most interviewees valued a concept library for phenotypes. However, only half of the participants felt that they would contribute by providing definitions for the concept library, and they reported many barriers regarding sharing their work on a publicly accessible platform. Analysis of interviews and the focus group discussion revealed that different stakeholders have different requirements, facilitators, barriers, and concerns about a prototype concept library.

Indexed as

clinical codesconcept librarieselectronic health recordsrecord linkagereproducible research

Identifiers

PMID35289755
PMCPMC8965669

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.