ArticlePloS one2024
Value sets and the problem of redundancy in value set repositories.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveCrafting high-quality value sets is time-consuming and requires a range of clinical, terminological, and informatics expertise. Despite widespread agreement on the importance of reusing value sets, value set repositories suffer from clutter and redundancy, greatly complicating efforts at reuse. When users encounter multiple value sets with the same name or ostensibly representing the same clinical condition, it can be difficult to choose amongst them or determine if any differences among them are due to error or intentional decision.
methodsThis paper offers a view of value set development and reuse based on a field study of researchers and informaticists. The results emerge from an analysis of relevant literature, reflective practice, and the field research data.
resultsQualitative analysis of our study data, the relevant literature, and our own professional experience led us to three dichotomous concepts that frame an understanding of diverse practices and perspectives surrounding value set development: Permissible values versus analytic value sets;Prescriptive versus descriptive approaches to controlled medical vocabulary use; andSemantic and empirical types of value set development and evaluation practices and the data they rely on.This three-fold framework opens up the redundancy problem, explaining why multiple value sets may or may not be needed and advancing academic understanding of value set development.
conclusionIn order for value set repositories to become more rather than less useful over time, software must channel user efforts into either improving existing value sets or making new ones only when absolutely necessary. This would require major, innovative changes to value set repository platforms. We believe the most direct path to giving value set developers the ability to leverage prior work is by encouraging them to compare existing value sets using advanced interfaces like VS-Hub, and by collecting and using metadata about code inclusion and exclusion decisions during the authoring process.
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.