ArticleBundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz2024
[FAIR health data in the national and international data space].
Article in Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sharing EHR data of patients with rare diseases for research - The role of quality assessments in a national federated research data infrastructure.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Lessons learned from implementing FAIRification workflows in diabetes research in Germany.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Health data are extremely important in today's data-driven world. Through automation, healthcare processes can be optimized, and clinical decisions can be supported. For any reuse of data, the quality, validity, and trustworthiness of data are essential, and it is the only way to guarantee that data can be reused sensibly. Specific requirements for the description and coding of reusable data are defined in the FAIR guiding principles for data stewardship. Various national research associations and infrastructure projects in the German healthcare sector have already clearly positioned themselves on the FAIR principles: both the infrastructures of the Medical Informatics Initiative and the University Medicine Network operate explicitly on the basis of the FAIR principles, as do the National Research Data Infrastructure for Personal Health Data and the German Center for Diabetes Research.To ensure that a resource complies with the FAIR principles, the degree of FAIRness should first be determined (so-called FAIR assessment), followed by the prioritization for improvement steps (so-called FAIRification). Since 2016, a set of tools and guidelines have been developed for both steps, based on the different, domain-specific interpretations of the FAIR principles.Neighboring European countries have also invested in the development of a national framework for semantic interoperability in the context of the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) principles. Concepts for comprehensive data enrichment were developed to simplify data analysis, for example, in the European Health Data Space or via the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics network. With the support of the European Open Science Cloud, among others, structured FAIRification measures have already been taken for German health datasets.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.