Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37889577›Full record

ArticleBig data2023

Sharing Medical Big Data While Preserving Patient Confidentiality in Innovative Medicines Initiative: A Summary and Case Report from BigData@Heart.

Megan Schröder, Sam H A Muller, Eleni Vradi, Johanna Mielke, Yvonne M F Lim, Fabrice Couvelard, Menno Mostert, Stefan Koudstaal, Marinus J C Eijkemans, Christoph Gerlinger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Big data, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

10 authors.

Megan SchröderThe Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry, and Epidemiology (IBE), Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Münich, Germany.
Sam H A MullerJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1800-5443
Eleni VradiBiomedical Data Science II, Bayer AG, Berlin, Germany.
Johanna MielkeResearch and Early Development, Bayer AG, Wuppertal, Germany.
Yvonne M F LimJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Fabrice CouvelardInstitut de Recherches Internationales SERVIER (I.R.I.S.), Suresnes, France.
Menno MostertJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Stefan KoudstaalJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Marinus J C EijkemansJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Christoph GerlingerClinical Statistics and Data Insights, Bayer AG, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sharing individual patient data (IPD) is a simple concept but complex to achieve due to data privacy and data security concerns, underdeveloped guidelines, and legal barriers. Sharing IPD is additionally difficult in big data-driven collaborations such as Bigdata@Heart in the Innovative Medicines Initiative, due to competing interests between diverse consortium members. One project within BigData@Heart, case study 1, needed to pool data from seven heterogeneous data sets: five randomized controlled trials from three different industry partners, and two disease registries. Sharing IPD was not considered feasible due to legal requirements and the sensitive medical nature of these data. In addition, harmonizing the data sets for a federated data analysis was difficult due to capacity constraints and the heterogeneity of the data sets. An alternative option was to share summary statistics through contingency tables. Here it is demonstrated that this method along with anonymization methods to ensure patient anonymity had minimal loss of information. Although sharing IPD should continue to be encouraged and strived for, our approach achieved a good balance between data transparency while protecting patient privacy. It also allowed a successful collaboration between industry and academia.

Indexed as

Big DataConfidentialityComputer SecurityHumansPrivacydata transparencyhealth data research collaborationspatient data privacyresponsible data governancesharing individual patient datasummary statistics

Identifiers

PMID37889577
PMCPMC10733752

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.