ReviewBundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz2022
[Rare-disease data standards].
Review in Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development, Implementation, and Preliminary Results of a Novel Social Network for Rare Disease Communities: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- Identification of metabolite-disease associations based on knowledge graph.Metabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society · 2025Article
- Evolving Software Architecture Design in Telemedicine: A PRISMA-based Systematic Review.Healthcare informatics research · 2024Article
- [Healthcare networks for people with rare diseases: integrating data and expertise].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The use of standardized data formats (data standards) in healthcare supports four main goals: (1) exchange of data, (2) integration of computer systems and tools, (3) data storage and archiving, and (4) support of federated databases. Standards are especially important for rare-disease research and clinical care.In this review, we introduce healthcare standards and present a selection of standards that are commonly used in the field of rare diseases. The Human Phenotype Ontology (HPO) is the most commonly used standard for annotating phenotypic abnormalities and supporting phenotype-driven analysis of diagnostic exome and genome sequencing. Numerous standards for diseases are available that support a range of needs. Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM) and the Orphanet Rare Disease Ontology (ORDO) are the most important standards developed specifically for rare diseases. The Mondo Disease Ontology (Mondo) is a new disease ontology that aims to integrate data from a comprehensive range of current nosologies. New standards and schemas such as the Medical Action Ontology (MAxO) and the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health (GA4GH) phenopacket are being introduced to extend the scope of standards that support rare disease research.In order to provide optimal care for patients with SE in different healthcare settings, it will be necessary to better integrate standards for rare disease with electronic healthcare resources such as the Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) standard for healthcare data exchange.
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.