Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36406796›Full record

ArticleJAMIA open2022

Evaluating a novel approach to stimulate open science collaborations: a case series of "study-a-thon" events within the OHDSI and European IMI communities.

N Hughes, P R Rijnbeek, K van Bochove, T Duarte-Salles, C Steinbeisser, D Vizcaya, D Prieto-Alhambra, P Ryan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMIA open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

8 authors.

N HughesEpidemiology, Janssen R&D, Beerse, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1168-0537
P R RijnbeekDepartment of Medical Informatics, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
K van BochoveThe Hyve, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
T Duarte-SallesFundació Institut Universitari per a la recerca a l'Atenció Primària de Salut Jordi Gol i Gurina (IDIAPJGol), Barcelona, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8274-0357
C SteinbeisserSteinbeisser Project Management, Munich, Germany.
D VizcayaBayer Pharmaceuticals, Sant Joan Despi, Spain.
D Prieto-AlhambraNDORMS, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
P RyanEpidemiology, Janssen R&D, Titusville, New Jersey, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: We introduce and review the concept of a study-a-thon as a catalyst for open science in medicine, utilizing harmonized real world, observation health data, tools, skills, and methods to conduct network studies, generating insights for those wishing to use study-a-thons for future research. Materials and Methods: A series of historical study-a-thons since 2017 to present were reviewed for thematic insights as to the opportunity to accelerate the research method to conduct studies across therapeutic areas. Review of publications and experience of the authors generated insights to illustrate the conduct of study-a-thons, key learning, and direction for those wishing to conduct future such study-a-thons. Results: A review of six study-a-thons have provided insights into their scientific impact, and 13 areas of insights for those wishing to conduct future study-a-thons. Defining aspects of the study-a-thon method for rapid, collaborative research through network studies reinforce the need to clear scientific rationale, tools, skills, and methods being collaboratively to conduct a focused study. Well-characterized preparatory, execution and postevent phases, coalescing skills, experience, data, clinical input (ensuring representative clinical context to the research query), and well-defined, logical steps in conducting research via the study-a-thon method are critical. Conclusions: A study-a-thon is a focused multiday research event generating reliable evidence on a specific medical topic across different countries and health systems. In a study-a-thon, a multidisciplinary team collaborate to create an accelerated contribution to scientific evidence and clinical practice. It critically accelerates the research process, without inhibiting the quality of the research output and evidence generation, through a reproducible process.

Indexed as

clinical researchdata sciencesepidemiologyobservational researchresearch process

Identifiers

PMID36406796
PMCPMC9670330

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.