Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37566443›Full record

ArticleJMIR research protocols2023

Data Quality- and Utility-Compliant Anonymization of Common Data Model-Harmonized Electronic Health Record Data: Protocol for a Scoping Review.

Gaetan Kamdje Wabo, Fabian Prasser, Kerstin Gierend, Fabian Siegel, Thomas Ganslandt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR research protocols, 2023. 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. Review
  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

5 authors.

Gaetan Kamdje WaboDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Center for Preventive Medicine and Digital Health Baden-Württemberg, Mannheim Medical Faculty of the University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1053-6162
Fabian PrasserBerlin Institute of Health at Charité, Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3172-3095
Kerstin GierendDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Center for Preventive Medicine and Digital Health Baden-Württemberg, Mannheim Medical Faculty of the University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0417-3454
Fabian SiegelDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Center for Preventive Medicine and Digital Health Baden-Württemberg, Mannheim Medical Faculty of the University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9673-5030
Thomas GanslandtChair of Medical Informatics, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6864-8936

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe anonymization of Common Data Model (CDM)-converted EHR data is essential to ensure the data privacy in the use of harmonized health care data. However, applying data anonymization techniques can significantly affect many properties of the resulting data sets and thus biases research results. Few studies have reviewed these applications with a reflection of approaches to manage data utility and quality concerns in the context of CDM-formatted health care data.

objectiveOur intended scoping review aims to identify and describe (1) how formal anonymization methods are carried out with CDM-converted health care data, (2) how data quality and utility concerns are considered, and (3) how the various CDMs differ in terms of their suitability for recording anonymized data.

methodsThe planned scoping review is based on the framework of Arksey and O'Malley. By using this, only articles published in English will be included. The retrieval of literature items should be based on a literature search string combining keywords related to data anonymization, CDM standards, and data quality assessment. The proposed literature search query should be validated by a librarian, accompanied by manual searches to include further informal sources. Eligible articles will first undergo a deduplication step, followed by the screening of titles. Second, a full-text reading will allow the 2 reviewers involved to reach the final decision about article selection, while a domain expert will support the resolution of citation selection conflicts. Additionally, key information will be extracted, categorized, summarized, and analyzed by using a proposed template into an iterative process. Tabular and graphical analyses should be addressed in alignment with the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist. We also performed some tentative searches on Web of Science for estimating the feasibility of reaching eligible articles.

resultsTentative searches on Web of Science resulted in 507 nonduplicated matches, suggesting the availability of (potential) relevant articles. Further analysis and selection steps will allow us to derive a final literature set. Furthermore, the completion of this scoping review study is expected by the end of the fourth quarter of 2023.

conclusionsOutlining the approaches of applying formal anonymization methods on CDM-formatted health care data while taking into account data quality and utility concerns should provide useful insights to understand the existing approaches and future research direction based on identified gaps. This protocol describes a schedule to perform a scoping review, which should support the conduction of follow-up investigations. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/46471.

Indexed as

common data modeldata anonymizationdata privacy modelsdata qualitydata standardEHRelectronic health record

Identifiers

PMID37566443
PMCPMC10457704

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.