Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37591640›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2023

Developing an ethical framework-guided instrument for assessing bias in EHR-based Big Data studies: a research protocol.

Shan Qiao, George Khushf, Xiaoming Li, Jiajia Zhang, Bankole Olatosi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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.

Shan QiaoHealth Promotion Education and Behavior, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1834-1834
George KhushfDepartment of Philosophy, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, USA.
Xiaoming LiArnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, USA.
Jiajia ZhangDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Arnold School of Public Health, South Carolina College of Pharmacy - University of South Carolina Campus, Columbia, South Carolina, USA.
Bankole OlatosiHealth Services, Policy and Management, University of South Carolina Arnold School of Public Health, Columbia, South Carolina, USA olatosi@mailbox.sc.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-8295-8735

Funding

Patterns and predictors of viral suppression: A Big Data approachR01AI164947 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA AT COLUMBIA · PI OLATOSI, BANKOLE, ZHANG, JIAJIA · 2021 to 2025
$4.4M
NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI164947
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe emergence of Big Data health research has exponentially advanced the fields of medicine and public health but has also faced many ethical challenges. One of most worrying but still under-researched aspects of the ethical issues is the risk of potential biases in data sets (eg, electronic health records (EHR) data) as well as in the data curation and acquisition cycles. This study aims to develop, refine and pilot test an ethical framework-guided instrument for assessing bias in Big Data research using EHR data sets. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Ethical analysis and instrument development (ie, the EHR bias assessment guideline) will be implemented through an iterative process composed of literature/policy review, content analysis and interdisciplinary dialogues and discussion. The ethical framework and EHR bias assessment guideline will be iteratively refined and integrated with preliminary summaries of results in a way that informs subsequent research. We will engage data curators, end-user researchers, healthcare workers and patient representatives throughout all iterative cycles using various formats including in-depth interviews of key stakeholders, panel discussions and charrette workshops. The developed EHR bias assessment guideline will be pilot tested in an existing National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded Big Data HIV project (R01AI164947). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by Institutional Review Boards at the University of South Carolina (Pro00122501). Informed consent will be provided by the participants in the in-depth interviews. Study findings will be disseminated with key stakeholders, presented at relevant workshops and academic conferences, and published in peer-reviewed journals.

Indexed as

Big DataEthics Committees, ResearchBiasHumansPublic HealthUnited StatesHIV & AIDSMEDICAL ETHICSPUBLIC HEALTH

Identifiers

PMID37591640
PMCPMC10441074

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.