Identifying appropriate reference data models for comparative effectiveness research (CER) studies based on data from clinical information systems

Medical Care

Volumn 51, Issue 8 SUPPL.3, 2013, Pages

  Ogunyemi, Omolola I ^a   Meeker, Daniella ^b   Kim, Hyeon Eui ^c   Ashish, Naveen ^d   Farzaneh, Seena ^e   Boxwala, Aziz ^c  

^a CHARLES R DREW UNIVERSITY OF MEDICINE AND SCIENCE   (United States)

^b RAND CORPORATION   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d University of California Irvine   (United States)

^e SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

clinical informatics; common data models; comparative effectiveness research; data modeling; semantic interoperability; syntactic interoperability

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; DATA MODEL; HEALTH INSURANCE; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; MEDICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM; MEDICAL TERMINOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; SEMANTICS; STANDARD;

COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH; HUMANS; INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL; MODELS, THEORETICAL; SYSTEMS INTEGRATION; VOCABULARY, CONTROLLED;

EID: 84879881367     PISSN: 00257079     EISSN: 15371948     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31829b1e0b     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Berger ML, Mamdani M, Atkins D, et al. Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: defining, reporting and interpreting nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Retrospective Database Analysis Task Force Report-Part I. Value Health. 2009;12:1044-1052.
2. Cox E, Martin BC, Van Staa T, et al. Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: approaches to mitigate bias and confounding in the design of nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Good Research Practices for Retrospective Database Analysis Task Force Report-Part II. Value Health. 2009;12:1053-1061.
3. Kuchinke W, Ohmann C, Yang Q, et al. Heterogeneity prevails: the state of clinical trial data management in Europe-results of a survey of ECRIN centres. Trials. [Multicenter Study Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't]. 2010;11:79.
4. Lezzoni LI. Multiple chronic conditions and disabilities: implications for health services research and data demands. Health Serv Res. 2010;45 (5 Pt 2):1523-1540.
5. Niland JC, Rouse L, Stahl DC. An informatics blueprint for healthcare quality information systems. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006;13: 402-417. (Pubitemid 43947632)
6. Shortliffe EH, Sondik EJ. The public health informatics infrastructure: anticipating its role in cancer. Cancer Causes Control. 2006;17:861-869. (Pubitemid 44078279)
7. Souza T, Kush R, Evans JP. Global clinical data interchange standards are here! Drug Discov Today. 2007;12:174-181. (Pubitemid 46188409)
8. Brochhausen M, Spear AD, Cocos C, et al. The ACGT Master Ontology and its applications-towards an ontology-driven cancer research and management system. J Biomed Inform [Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Review]. 2011;44:8-25.
9. caBIG. caBIG Compatibility Guideline: Achieving Semantic Interoperability; 2008. Available at: https://cabig.nci.nih.gov/community/guide lines-documentation/. Accessed June 1, 2012.
10. Center M-SC. Mini-Sentinel: Common Data Model and Its Guiding Principle; 2010.
11. Fridsma DB, Evans J, Hastak S, et al. The BRIDG project: a technical report. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2008;15:130-137. (Pubitemid 351288539)
12. Network HR. Collaboration Toolkit: a Guide to Multicenter Research in the HMO Research Network; 2011. Available at: http://www.hmore searchnetwork.org/ resources/toolkit/HMORN-CollaborationToolkit.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2012.
13. OMOP. Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model Version 2.0 Specifications; 2011. Available at: http://75.101.131.161/download/ loadfile.php?docname=CDM%20Specification %20V2.0. Accessed April 12, 2012.
14. CDISC Analysis Data Model Team. CDISC Analysis Data Model (ADaM) v2.1; 2009. Available at: http://www.cdisc.org/stuff/con tentmgr/files/0/ 854651256c2654c94b03e6da1be6e145/misc/analysis-data-model-v2.1.pdf. Accessed June 22, 2011.
15. Overhage JM, Ryan PB, Reich CG, et al. Validation of a common data model for active safety surveillance research. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012;19:54-60.
16. Brown J, Lane K, Moore K, et al. Defining and evaluating possible database models to implement the FDA Sentinel initiative: Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care; 2009 Contract No.: HHSF223200831315P. [Report available at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D = FDA-2009-N-0192-0005].
17. Iglehart JK. Prioritizing comparative-effectiveness research-IOM recommendations. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:325-328.
18. Leslie RS, Ghomrawi H. The Use of Propensity Scores and Instrumental Variable Methods to Adjust for Treatment Selection Bias. Available at: http://www2.sas.com/proceedings/forum2008/366-2008.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2012.
19. McClellan M, McNeil BJ, Newhouse JP. Does more intensive treatment of acute myocardial infarction in the elderly reduce mortality? Analysis using instrumental variables. JAMA. 1994;272:859-866. (Pubitemid 24282095)
20. Newhouse JP, McClellan M. Econometrics in outcomes research: the use of instrumental variables. Annu Rev Public health. 1998;19:17-34. (Pubitemid 28279922)
21. Stewart AL, Ware JE. Measuring Functioning and Well-being: the Medical Outcomes Study Approach. Durham, NC: Duke University Press Books; 1992.
22. Mor V. A comprehensive clinical assessment tool to inform policy and practice: applications of the minimum data set. Med Care. 2004;42:III50-III59.
23. Savova GK, Masanz JJ, Ogren PV, et al. Mayo clinical Text Analysis and Knowledge Extraction System (cTAKES): architecture, component evaluation and applications. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2010;17:507-513.
24. OMOP. Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model Version 4.0 Specifications; 2012. Available at: http://75.101.131.161/download/ loadfile.php?docname = CDM%20Specifica tion%20V4.0. Accessed June 15, 2012.
25. Center M-SC. Mini-Sentinel: Principles and Policies, 2012. Available at: http://mini-sentinel.org/work-products/About-Us/Mini-Sentinel- Principles-and-Policies.pdf. Accessed May 30, 2013.
26. Core M-SCC-D. Mini-Sentinel: Overview and Description of the Common Data Model v2.1; 2011. Available at: http://www.minisentinel.org/work-products/Data- Activities/Mini-Sentinel-Common-Data-Model-v2.1.pdf. Accessed November 4, 2012.
27. Curtis LH, Weiner MG, Boudreau DM, et al. Design considerations, architecture, and use of the Mini-Sentinel distributed data system. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012;21(suppl 1):23-31.
28. Platt R, Carnahan RM, Brown JS, et al. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Mini-Sentinel program: status and direction. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012;21(suppl 1):1-8.