ReviewYearbook of medical informatics2014
Information technology for clinical, translational and comparative effectiveness research. Findings from the section clinical research informatics.
Review in Yearbook of medical informatics, 2014. 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.
- Clinical Decision Support: a 25 Year Retrospective and a 25 Year Vision.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2016Review
- Health information technology in oncology practice: a literature review.Cancer informatics · 2014Review
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
objectiveTo select and summarize key contributions to current research in the field of Clinical Research Informatics (CRI).
methodA bibliographic search using a combination of MeSH and free terms search over PubMed was performed followed by a blinded review.
resultsThe review process resulted in the selection of four papers illustrating various aspects of current research efforts in the area of CRI. The first paper tackles the challenge of extracting accurate phenotypes from Electronic Healthcare Records (EHRs). Privacy protection within shared de-identified, patient-level research databases is the focus of the second selected paper. Two other papers exemplify the growing role of formal representation of clinical data - in metadata repositories - and knowledge - in ontologies - for supporting the process of reusing data for clinical research.
conclusionsThe selected articles demonstrate how concrete platforms are currently achieving interoperability across clinical research and care domains and have reached the evaluation phase. When EHRs linked to genetic data have the potential to shift the research focus from research driven patient recruitment to phenotyping in large population, a key issue is to lower patient re-identification risks for biomedical research databases. Current research illustrates the potential of knowledge engineering to support, in the coming years, the scientific lifecycle of clinical research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.