ArticleDigital health
Secondary use of patient data within decentralized studies using the example of rare diseases in Germany: A data scientist's exploration of process and lessons learned.
Article in Digital health. 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.
- Decentralized rare disease studies in Germany: first results and hurdles of secondary use of patient data.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Leveraging Interoperable Electronic Health Record (EHR) Data for Distributed Analyses in Clinical Research: Technical Implementation Report of the HELP Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Unlocking the potential of routine medical data for clinical research requires the analysis of data from multiple healthcare institutions. However, according to German data protection regulations, data can often not leave the individual institutions and decentralized approaches are needed. Decentralized studies face challenges regarding coordination, technical infrastructure, interoperability and regulatory compliance. Rare diseases are an important prototype research focus for decentralized data analyses, as patients are rare by definition and adequate cohort sizes can only be reached if data from multiple sites is combined. Methods: Within the project "Collaboration on Rare Diseases", decentralized studies focusing on four rare diseases (cystic fibrosis, phenylketonuria, Kawasaki disease, multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children) were conducted at 17 German university hospitals. Therefore, a data management process for decentralized studies was developed by an interdisciplinary team of experts from medicine, public health and data science. Along the process, lessons learned were formulated and discussed. Results: The process consists of eight steps and includes sub-processes for the definition of medical use cases, script development and data management. The lessons learned include on the one hand the organization and administration of the studies (collaboration of experts, use of standardized forms and publication of project information), and on the other hand the development of scripts and analysis (dependency on the database, use of standards and open source tools, feedback loops, anonymization). Conclusions: This work captures central challenges and describes possible solutions and can hence serve as a solid basis for the implementation and conduction of similar decentralized studies.
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.