Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38724966›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2024

Colorectal cancer health and care quality indicators in a federated setting using the Personal Health Train.

Ananya Choudhury, Esther Janssen, Bart C Bongers, Nico L U van Meeteren, Andre Dekker, Johan van Soest

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

6 authors.

Ananya ChoudhuryDepartment of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW Research Institute for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands. ananya.choudhury@maastro.nl.
Esther JanssenDepartment of Orthopaedics, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Bart C BongersDepartment of Nutrition and Movement Sciences, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism (NUTRIM), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Nico L U van MeeterenTop Sector Life Sciences and Health (Health∼Holland), the Hague, the Netherlands.
Andre DekkerDepartment of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW Research Institute for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Johan van SoestDepartment of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW Research Institute for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveHospitals and healthcare providers should assess and compare the quality of care given to patients and based on this improve the care. In the Netherlands, hospitals provide data to national quality registries, which in return provide annual quality indicators. However, this process is time-consuming, resource intensive and risks patient privacy and confidentiality. In this paper, we presented a multicentric 'Proof of Principle' study for federated calculation of quality indicators in patients with colorectal cancer. The findings suggest that the proposed approach is highly time-efficient and consume significantly lesser resources. MATERIALS AND

methodsTwo quality indicators are calculated in an efficient and privacy presevering federated manner, by i) applying the Findable Accessible Interoperable and Reusable (FAIR) data principles and ii) using the Personal Health Train (PHT) infrastructure. Instead of sharing data to a centralized registry, PHT enables analysis by sending algorithms and sharing only insights from the data.

resultsETL process extracted data from the Electronic Health Record systems of the hospitals, converted them to FAIR data and hosted in RDF endpoints within each hospital. Finally, quality indicators from each center are calculated using PHT and the mean result along with the individual results plotted. DISCUSSION AND

conclusionPHT and FAIR data principles can efficiently calculate quality indicators in a privacy-preserving federated approach and the work can be scaled up both nationally and internationally. Despite this, application of the methodology was largely hampered by ELSI issues. However, the lessons learned from this study can provide other hospitals and researchers to adapt to the process easily and take effective measures in building quality of care infrastructures.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsElectronic Health RecordsQuality Indicators, Health CareHumansNetherlandsRegistriesBig DataColorectalPrivacyQuality of CareRegistry

Identifiers

PMID38724966
PMCPMC11080148

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.