ReviewYearbook of medical informatics2024
Clinical Research Informatics: Contributions from 2023.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.