ArticleJournal of biomedical semantics2022
Defining health data elements under the HL7 development framework for metadata management.
Article in Journal of biomedical semantics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Common data models and data standards for tabular health data: a systematic review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Pooled it
- Intelligent data governance and quality control for chest Bi syndrome/coronary heart disease across the prevention-treatment-rehabilitation continuum: integrating a standardized framework, adversarially-optimized trigger engine, and domain-adaptive AI.Frontiers in medical technology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealth data from different specialties or domains generallly have diverse formats and meanings, which can cause semantic communication barriers when these data are exchanged among heterogeneous systems. As such, this study is intended to develop a national health concept data model (HCDM) and develop a corresponding system to facilitate healthcare data standardization and centralized metadata management.
methodsBased on 55 data sets (4640 data items) from 7 health business domains in China, a bottom-up approach was employed to build the structure and metadata for HCDM by referencing HL7 RIM. According to ISO/IEC 11179, a top-down approach was used to develop and standardize the data elements.
resultsHCDM adopted three-level architecture of class, attribute and data type, and consisted of 6 classes and 15 sub-classes. Each class had a set of descriptive attributes and every attribute was assigned a data type. 100 initial data elements (DEs) were extracted from HCDM and 144 general DEs were derived from corresponding initial DEs. Domain DEs were transformed by specializing general DEs using 12 controlled vocabularies which developed from HL7 vocabularies and actual health demands. A model-based system was successfully established to evaluate and manage the NHDD.
conclusionsHCDM provided a unified metadata reference for multi-source data standardization and management. This approach of defining health data elements was a feasible solution in healthcare information standardization to enable healthcare interoperability in China.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.