Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37639292›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2023

Initiatives, Concepts, and Implementation Practices of the Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable Data Principles in Health Data Stewardship: Scoping Review.

Esther Thea Inau, Jean Sack, Dagmar Waltemath, Atinkut Alamirrew Zeleke

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. [FAIR health data in the national and international data space].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2024
    Article
  19. 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

4 authors.

Esther Thea InauDepartment of Medical Informatics, Institute for Community Medicine, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8950-2239
Jean SackInternational Health Department, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-9279-2073
Dagmar WaltemathDepartment of Medical Informatics, Institute for Community Medicine, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5886-5563
Atinkut Alamirrew ZelekeDepartment of Medical Informatics, Institute for Community Medicine, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7838-9050

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThorough data stewardship is a key enabler of comprehensive health research. Processes such as data collection, storage, access, sharing, and analytics require researchers to follow elaborate data management strategies properly and consistently. Studies have shown that findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR) data leads to improved data sharing in different scientific domains.

objectiveThis scoping review identifies and discusses concepts, approaches, implementation experiences, and lessons learned in FAIR initiatives in health research data.

methodsThe Arksey and O'Malley stage-based methodological framework for scoping reviews was applied. PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched to access relevant publications. Articles written in English, published between 2014 and 2020, and addressing FAIR concepts or practices in the health domain were included. The 3 data sources were deduplicated using a reference management software. In total, 2 independent authors reviewed the eligibility of each article based on defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. A charting tool was used to extract information from the full-text papers. The results were reported using the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines.

resultsA total of 2.18% (34/1561) of the screened articles were included in the final review. The authors reported FAIRification approaches, which include interpolation, inclusion of comprehensive data dictionaries, repository design, semantic interoperability, ontologies, data quality, linked data, and requirement gathering for FAIRification tools. Challenges and mitigation strategies associated with FAIRification, such as high setup costs, data politics, technical and administrative issues, privacy concerns, and difficulties encountered in sharing health data despite its sensitive nature were also reported. We found various workflows, tools, and infrastructures designed by different groups worldwide to facilitate the FAIRification of health research data. We also uncovered a wide range of problems and questions that researchers are trying to address by using the different workflows, tools, and infrastructures. Although the concept of FAIR data stewardship in the health research domain is relatively new, almost all continents have been reached by at least one network trying to achieve health data FAIRness. Documented outcomes of FAIRification efforts include peer-reviewed publications, improved data sharing, facilitated data reuse, return on investment, and new treatments. Successful FAIRification of data has informed the management and prognosis of various diseases such as cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and neurological diseases. Efforts to FAIRify data on a wider variety of diseases have been ongoing since the COVID-19 pandemic.

conclusionsThis work summarises projects, tools, and workflows for the FAIRification of health research data. The comprehensive review shows that implementing the FAIR concept in health data stewardship carries the promise of improved research data management and transparency in the era of big data and open research publishing. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/22505.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular DiseasesCOVID-19Big DataData AccuracyHumansPandemicsdata stewardshipFAIR data principlesfindable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable data principleshealth information exchangehealth researchinformation retrievalPreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-AnalysesPRISMAqualitative analysisscoping review

Identifiers

PMID37639292
PMCPMC10495848

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.