ArticlePloS one2024
Data cleaning and harmonization of clinical trial data: Medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorder.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A new AI assisted approach aligns data standards and accelerates interoperability in biomedical research.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Applying machine learning in predicting medication treatment outcomes for opioid use disorder.Journal of substance use and addiction treatment · 2026Article
- A natural language processing approach to support biomedical data harmonization: Leveraging large language models.PloS one · 2025Article
- Enhancing Gen3 for clinical trial time series analytics and data discovery: a data commons framework for NIH clinical trials.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Empirically contrasting urine drug screening-based opioid use disorder treatment outcome definitions.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2024Article
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
Abstract
Several large-scale, pragmatic clinical trials on opioid use disorder (OUD) have been completed in the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN). However, the resulting data have not been harmonized between the studies to compare the patient characteristics. This paper provides lessons learned from a large-scale harmonization process that are critical for all biomedical researchers collecting new data and those tasked with combining datasets. We harmonized data from multiple domains from CTN-0027 (N = 1269), which compared methadone and buprenorphine at federally licensed methadone treatment programs; CTN-0030 (N = 653), which recruited patients who used predominantly prescription opioids and were treated with buprenorphine; and CTN-0051 (N = 570), which compared buprenorphine and extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) and recruited from inpatient treatment facilities. Patient-level data were harmonized and a total of 23 database tables, with meticulous documentation, covering more than 110 variables, along with three tables with "meta-data" about the study design and treatment arms, were created. Domains included: social and demographic characteristics, medical and psychiatric history, self-reported drug use details and urine drug screening results, withdrawal, and treatment drug details. Here, we summarize the numerous issues with the organization and fidelity of the publicly available data which were noted and resolved, and present results on patient characteristics across the three trials and the harmonized domains, respectively. A systematic harmonization of OUD clinical trial data can be accomplished, despite heterogeneous data coding and classification procedures, by standardizing commonly assessed characteristics. Similar methods, embracing database normalization and/or "tidy" data, should be used for future datasets in other substance use disorder clinical trials.
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.