ArticlePloS one2024
Capability and accuracy of usual statistical analyses in a real-world setting using a federated approach.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Evaluating the statistical utility and information loss in the transformation of a real-world oncology database from CDISC-SDTM to OMOP-CDM.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2026Article
- Technical and legal aspects of federated learning in bioinformatics: applications, challenges and opportunities.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
methodsThe objective of this project was to determine the capability of a federated analysis approach using DataSHIELD to maintain the level of results of a classical centralized analysis in a real-world setting. This research was carried out on an anonymous synthetic longitudinal real-world oncology cohort randomly splitted in three local databases, mimicking three healthcare organizations, stored in a federated data platform integrating DataSHIELD. No individual data transfer, statistics were calculated simultaneously but in parallel within each healthcare organization and only summary statistics (aggregates) were provided back to the federated data analyst. Descriptive statistics, survival analysis, regression models and correlation were first performed on the centralized approach and then reproduced on the federated approach. The results were then compared between the two approaches.
resultsThe cohort was splitted in three samples (N1 = 157 patients, N2 = 94 and N3 = 64), 11 derived variables and four types of analyses were generated. All analyses were successfully reproduced using DataSHIELD, except for one descriptive variable due to data disclosure limitation in the federated environment, showing the good capability of DataSHIELD. For descriptive statistics, exactly equivalent results were found for the federated and centralized approaches, except some differences for position measures. Estimates of univariate regression models were similar, with a loss of accuracy observed for multivariate models due to source database variability.
conclusionOur project showed a practical implementation and use case of a real-world federated approach using DataSHIELD. The capability and accuracy of common data manipulation and analysis were satisfying, and the flexibility of the tool enabled the production of a variety of analyses while preserving the privacy of individual data. The DataSHIELD forum was also a practical source of information and support. In order to find the right balance between privacy and accuracy of the analysis, set-up of privacy requirements should be established prior to the start of the analysis, as well as a data quality review of the participating healthcare organization.
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.