Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40199299›Full record

ReviewYearbook of medical informatics2024

Clinical Research Informatics: Contributions from 2023.

Xavier Tannier, Dipak Kalra

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Yearbook of medical informatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Xavier TannierSorbonne University, Inserm, University Sorbonne Paris-Nord, University Paris 13, Sorbonne Paris Cité, INSERM UMR_S 1142, LIMICS, F-75006 Paris, France.
Dipak KalraThe University of Gent, Gent, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo summarize key contributions to current research in the field of Clinical Research Informatics (CRI) and to select the best papers published in 2023.

methodsA bibliographic search using a combination of MeSH descriptors and free-text terms on CRI was performed using PubMed, followed by a double-blind review in order to select a list of candidate best papers to be then peer-reviewed by external reviewers. After peer-review ranking, a consensus meeting between the two section editors and the editorial team was organized to finally conclude on the selected three best papers.

resultsAmong the 1,119 papers returned by the search, published in 2023, that were in the scope of the various areas of CRI, the full review process selected three best papers. The first best paper describes the process undertaken in Germany, under the national Medical Informatics Initiative, to define and validate a provenance metadata framework to enable the interpretation including quality assessment of health data reused for research. The authors of the second-best paper present a methodology for the generation of computable phenotypes and the covariates associated with success rates in e-phenotype validation. The third-best presents a review of published and accessible tools that enable the assessment of health data quality through an automated process. This year's survey paper marks the tenth anniversary of the CRI section of the Yearbook by reviewing the dominant themes within CRI over the past decade and the major milestone innovations within this field.

conclusionsThe literature relevant to CRI in 2023 has largely been populated by publications that assess and enhance the reusability of health data for clinical research, in particular data quality assessment and metadata management.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchMedical InformaticsAwards and PrizesHumans

Identifiers

PMID40199299
PMCPMC12020644

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.