The need for harmonized structured documentation and chances of secondary use - Results of a systematic analysis with automated form comparison for prostate and breast cancer

Journal of Biomedical Informatics

Volumn 51, Issue , 2014, Pages 86-99

  Krumm, Rainer ^a   Semjonow, Axel ^b   Tio, Joke ^b   Duhme, Heike ^b   Bürkle, Thomas ^c   Haier, Jörg ^b   Dugas, Martin ^a   Breil, Bernhard ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MÜNSTER   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL MÜNSTER   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ERLANGEN NUREMBERG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Automated form comparison; Clinical documentation; Common data elements; Secondary use; Semantic interoperability; Standardization

Indexed keywords

AUTOMATION; CLINICAL RESEARCH; HOSPITALS; ODOR CONTROL; QUALITY MANAGEMENT; SEMANTICS; STANDARDIZATION; UROLOGY;

AUTOMATED FORM COMPARISON; CLINICAL DOCUMENTATION; COMMON DATUM; SECONDARY USE; SEMANTIC INTEROPERABILITY;

DISEASES;

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; AUTOANALYSIS; BREAST CANCER; CANCER PATIENT; COMPARATIVE STUDY; MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION; PROSTATE CANCER; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; SEMANTICS; STANDARDIZATION; AUTOMATED PATTERN RECOGNITION; BREAST TUMOR; CLASSIFICATION; DATA MINING; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; FEMALE; GERMANY; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MALE; MEDICAL RECORD; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING; PROCEDURES; PROSTATE TUMOR;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; DATA CURATION; DATA MINING; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS; FEMALE; FORMS AND RECORDS CONTROL; GERMANY; HUMANS; MALE; MEDICAL RECORD LINKAGE; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING; PATTERN RECOGNITION, AUTOMATED; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RECORDS AS TOPIC; SEMANTICS;

EID: 84908043177     PISSN: 15320464     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2014.04.008     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Dokumentation in der Medizin - Es ist ein Wahnsinn. [accessed 30.07.13]. http://www.data.aerzteblatt.org/pdf/106/12/a577.pdf.
2. National Cancer Institute and the National Institute of Health (USA): A Snapshot of Breast Cancer. [accessed 31.05.13]. http://www.cancer.gov/researchandfunding/snapshots/pdf/Breast-Snapshot.pdf.
3. National Cancer Institute and the National Institute of Health (USA): Prostate Cancer [accessed 31.05.13]. http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@nho/documents/document/prostatecancerpdf.pdf.
4. Datensparsame einheitliche Tumordokumentation - eine Kernforderung des Nationalen Krebsplans. Berlin, Bundesministerium für Gesundheit, 2011. [accessed 31.05.13]. http://www.bmg.bund.de/fileadmin/dateien/Downloads/N/Nationaler_Krebsplan/Papier_zur_Tumordokumentation_101011.pdf.
5. Krüger-Brand HE. Tumordokumentation: Aufwand für den Arzt verringern. Dtsch Arztebl, International. 2010 January 4; 107(22):A-1125EP-
6. Ammenwerth E., Spötl H.P. The time needed for clinical documentation versus direct patient care. A work-sampling analysis of physicians' activities. Methods Inf Med 2009, 48(1):84-91.
7. Blum K., Muller U. Time spent on documentation during physicians' service in hospitals. Representative increase of the German Hospital Institute. Chirurg 2003 Sep, 74(9):M276-M280.
8. Ries M., Prokosch H.-U., Beckmann M.W., Bürkle T. Single-source tumor documentation - reusing oncology data for different purposes. Onkologie 2013, 36(3):136-141. 10.1159/000348528.
9. Breil B., Semjonow A., Müller-Tidow C., Fritz F., Dugas M. HIS-based Kaplan-Meier plots - a single source approach for documenting and reusing routine survival information. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2011 Feb, 16(11):11. 10.1186/1472-6947-11-11.
10. Prokosch H.U., Ganslandt T. Perspectives for medical informatics. Reusing the electronic medical record for clinical research. Methods Inf Med 2009, 48(1):38-44.
11. Kush R., Alschuler L., Ruggeri R., Cassells S., Gupta N., Bain L., et al. Implementing single source: the STARBRITE proof-of-concept study. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2007, 14(5):662-673.
12. El Fadly A., Rance B., Lucas N., Mead C., Chatellier G., Lastic P.Y., et al. Integrating clinical research with the Healthcare Enterprise: from the RE-USE project to the EHR4CR platform. J Biomed Inform 2011 Dec, 44(Suppl 1):S94-S102. 10.1016/j.jbi.2011.07.007.
13. Getz K.A., Wenger J., Campo R.A., Seguine E.S., Kaitin K.I. Assessing the impact of protocol design changes on clinical trial performance. Am J Ther 2008 Sep, 15(5):450-457.
14. Zhu Q., Freimuth R.R., Lian Z., Bauer S., Pathak J., Tao C., et al. Harmonization and semantic annotation of data dictionaries from the Pharmacogenomics Research Network: a case study. J Biomed Inform 2013 Apr, 46(2):286-293. 10.1016/j.jbi.2012.11.004.
15. SNOMED CT - ihtsdo. [accessed 31.05.13]. http://www.ihtsdo.org/snomed-ct/.
16. Unified Medical Language System® (UMLS®). [accessed 31.05.13]. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/research/umls/.
17. Bodenreider O. Biomedical ontologies in action: role in knowledge management, data integration and decision support. Yearb Med Inform 2008, 67-79.
18. Dugas M., Fritz F., Krumm R., Breil B. Automated UMLS-based comparison of medical forms. PLoS One 2013 Jul 4, 8(7):e67883. 10.1371/journal.pone.0067883.
19. Blobel B. Knowledge representation and management enabling intelligent interoperability - principles and standards. Stud Health Technol Inform 2013, 186:3-21.
20. Operational Data Model. [accessed 31.05.13]. http://www.cdisc.org/odm.
21. CRAN - Package ODMconverter. [accessed 15.06.13]. http://www.cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ODMconverter/index.html.
22. NCI Metathesaurus (NCIm). [accessed 31.05.13]. http://www.ncimeta.nci.nih.gov/ncimbrowser/.
23. CliniClue® Xplore. , [accessed 06.1113]. http://www.cliniclue.com.
24. IBM SPSS Statistics. [accessed 31.05.13]. http://www-01.ibm.com/software/de/analytics/spss/.
25. Krebsregister NRW Datensatz. [accessed 25.05.13]. http://www.krebsregister.nrw.de/index.php?id=23.
26. Gesellschaft der epidemiologischen Krebsregister in Deutschland e.V. (GEKID). [accessed 31.05.13]. http://www.gekid.de.
27. Notification to the Finnish Cancer Registry. [accessed 31.05.13]. http://www.cancer.fi/@Bin/60719131/kl+lomake+eng.pdf.
28. Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Tumorzentren e.V. (ADT). << [accessed 31.05.13]. http://www.tumorzentren.de.
29. Gemeinsamer einheitlicher Onkologischer Basisdatensatz. [accessed 31.05.13]. http://www.tumorzentren.de/onkol-basisdatensatz.html.
30. ONDIS Dokumentation in der onkologischen Qualitätssicherung der KVWL. [accessed 31.05.13]. http://www.ondis.kv-it-gmbh.de/programm.html.
31. AQUA Institut GmbH. [accessed 31.05.13]. http://www.aqua-institut.de.
32. Datensatz Mammachirurgie. [accessed 31.05.13]. https://www.sqg.de/downloads/2013/SR3/Dokumentationsboegen/18-1.pdf.
33. Deutsche Prostatakarzinom Konsortium (DPKK) e.V. [accessed 31.05.13]. http://www.dpkk.de.
34. CPCTR Common Data Elements for Collection of Prostate Cancer Specimens. [accessed 31.05.13]. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1236914/bin/1471-2407-5-108-S2.pdf.
35. ALTTO (Adjuvant Lapatinib And/Or Trastuzumab Treatment Optimisation) Study; BIG 2-06/N063D. [accessed 31.05.13]. http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00490139.
36. compareODM: comparison of medical forms in CDISC ODM format. [accessed 31.05.13]. http://www.cran.r-project.org/web/packages/compareODM/index.html.
37. Unified Medical Language System® (UMLS®) - Statistics - 2013AA Release. [accessed 06.11.13]. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/research/umls/knowledge_sources/metathesaurus/release/statistics.html.
38. SNOMED CT Components. [accessed 06.11.13]. http://www.ihtsdo.org/snomed-ct/snomed-ct0/snomed-ct-components/.
39. Andrews J.E., Patrick T.B., Richesson R.L., Brown H., Krischer J.P. Comparing heterogeneous SNOMED CT coding of clinical research concepts by examining normalized expressions. J Biomed Inform 2008 Dec, 41(6):1062-1069. 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.01.010.
40. Andrews J.E., Richesson R.L., Krischer J. Variation of SNOMED CT coding of clinical research concepts among coding experts. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2007, 14(4):497-506.
41. Chiang M.F., Hwang J.C., Yu A.C., Casper D.S., Cimino J.J., Starren J.B. Reliability of SNOMED-CT coding by three physicians using two terminology browsers. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2006, 131-135.
42. Richesson R.L., Nadkarni P. Data standards for clinical research data collection forms: current status and challenges. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2011 May 1, 18(3):341-346. 10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000107.
43. Pedersen S, Hasselbring W. Interoperabilität für Informationssysteme im Gesundheitswesen auf Basis medizinischer Standards. Informatik Forschung und Entwicklung. Springer; 2004; 18(3-4): 174-88.
44. Wade G., Rosenbloom S.T. Experiences mapping a legacy interface terminology to SNOMED CT. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2008, 8(Suppl 1):S3. 10.1186/1472-6947-8-S1-S3.
45. Beckmann K., Jud S., Hein A., Heusinger K., Bayer C., Schwenk M., et al. Dokumentation in der gynákologischen Onkologie: Im Spannungsfeld zwischen Qualitátssicherung und Wissenschaft, Ergonomie und Rechtssicherheit. Gynákologe 2010, 43:400-410.
46. Ries M. Konzeption und Aufbau eines Single-Source Tumordokumentationsablaufs am Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-Nürnberg. Dissertation at the University Erlangen, Nürnberg; 2012.
47. German Federal Ministry of Health: Ziele des Nationalen Krebsplans. [accessed 31.05.13]. http://www.bmg.bund.de/fileadmin/dateien/Downloads/N/Nationaler_Krebsplan/Nationaler_Krebsplan-Zieluebersicht.pdf.
48. NCI Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). [accessed 31.07.13]. http://www.evs.nci.nih.gov/ftp1/CTCAE/About.html.
49. Weintraub W.S., Karlsberg R.P., Tcheng J.E., Boris J.R., Buxton A.E., Dove J.T., et al. American College of Cardiology Foundation; American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Data Standards. ACCF/AHA 2011 key data elements and definitions of a base cardiovascular vocabulary for electronic health records: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Data Standards. Circulation 2011, 124(1):103-123. 10.1161/CIR.0b013e31821ccf71.