Dataset Information

Application description and policy model in collaborative environment for sharing of information on epidemiological and clinical research data sets.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Sharing of epidemiological and clinical data sets among researchers is poor at best, in detriment of science and community at large. The purpose of this paper is therefore to (1) describe a novel Web application designed to share information on study data sets focusing on epidemiological clinical research in a collaborative environment and (2) create a policy model placing this collaborative environment into the current scientific social context. METHODOLOGY: The Database of Databases application was developed based on feedback from epidemiologists and clinical researchers requiring a Web-based platform that would allow for sharing of information about epidemiological and clinical study data sets in a collaborative environment. This platform should ensure that researchers can modify the information. A Model-based predictions of number of publications and funding resulting from combinations of different policy implementation strategies (for metadata and data sharing) were generated using System Dynamics modeling. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The application allows researchers to easily upload information about clinical study data sets, which is searchable and modifiable by other users in a wiki environment. All modifications are filtered by the database principal investigator in order to maintain quality control. The application has been extensively tested and currently contains 130 clinical study data sets from the United States, Australia, China and Singapore. Model results indicated that any policy implementation would be better than the current strategy, that metadata sharing is better than data-sharing, and that combined policies achieve the best results in terms of publications. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our empirical observations and resulting model, the social network environment surrounding the application can assist epidemiologists and clinical researchers contribute and search for metadata in a collaborative environment, thus potentially facilitating collaboration efforts among research communities distributed around the globe.

SUBMITTER: de Carvalho EC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2824801 | biostudies-literature | 2010

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Application description and policy model in collaborative environment for sharing of information on epidemiological and clinical research data sets.

de Carvalho Elias César Araujo EC Batilana Adelia Portero AP Simkins Julie J Martins Henrique H Shah Jatin J Rajgor Dimple D Shah Anand A Rockart Scott S Pietrobon Ricardo R

PloS one 20100219 2

<h4>Background</h4>Sharing of epidemiological and clinical data sets among researchers is poor at best, in detriment of science and community at large. The purpose of this paper is therefore to (1) describe a novel Web application designed to share information on study data sets focusing on epidemiological clinical research in a collaborative environment and (2) create a policy model placing this collaborative environment into the current scientific social context.<h4>Methodology</h4>The Databas ...[more]

PMID: 20174560

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSystematic identification of evidence in health policy can be time-consuming and challenging. This study examines three questions pertaining to systematic reviews on obesity prevention policy, in order to identify the most efficient search methods: (1) What percentage of the primary studies selected for inclusion in the reviews originated in scholarly as opposed to gray literature? (2) How much of the primary scholarly literature in this topic area is indexed in PubMed/MEDLINE? (3) Which databases index the greatest number of primary studies not indexed in PubMed, and are these databases searched consistently across systematic reviews?MethodsWe identified systematic reviews on obesity prevention policy and explored their search methods and citations. We determined the percentage of scholarly vs. gray literature cited, the most frequently cited journals, and whether each primary study was indexed in PubMed. We searched 21 databases for all primary study articles not indexed in PubMed to determine which database(s) indexed the highest number of these relevant articles.ResultsIn total, 21 systematic reviews were identified. Ten of the 21 systematic reviews reported searching gray literature, and 12 reviews ultimately included gray literature in their analyses. Scholarly articles accounted for 577 of the 649 total primary study papers. Of these, 495 (76%) were indexed in PubMed. Google Scholar retrieved the highest number of the remaining 82 non-PubMed scholarly articles, followed by Scopus and EconLit. The Journal of the American Dietetic Association was the most-cited journal.ConclusionsResearchers can maximize search efficiency by searching a small yet targeted selection of both scholarly and gray literature resources. A highly sensitive search of PubMed and those databases that index the greatest number of relevant articles not indexed in PubMed, namely multidisciplinary and economics databases, could save considerable time and effort. When combined with a gray literature search and additional search methods, including cited reference searching and consulting with experts, this approach could help maintain broad retrieval of relevant studies while improving search efficiency. Findings also have implications for designing specialized databases for public health research.

Project description:BackgroundPrevious studies on COVID-19 scholarly articles have primarily focused on bibliometric characteristics, neglecting the identification of institutional actors that cite recent scientific contributions related to COVID-19 in the policy domain, and their locations.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to assess the online citation network and knowledge structure of COVID-19 research across policy domains over 2 years from January 2020 to January 2022, with a particular emphasis on geographical frequency. Two research questions were addressed. The first question was related to who has been the most active in policy engagement with science and research information sharing during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in terms of countries and organization types. The second question was related to whether there are significant differences in the types of coronavirus research shared among countries and continents.MethodsThe Altmetric database was used to collect policy report citations of scientific articles for 3 topic terms (COVID-19, COVID-19 vaccine, and COVID-19 variants). Altmetric provides the URLs of policy agencies that have cited COVID-19 research. The scientific articles used for Altmetric citations are extracted from journals indexed by PubMed. The numbers of COVID-19, COVID-19 vaccine, and COVID-19 variant research outputs between January 1, 2020, and January 31, 2022, were 216,787, 16,748, and 2777, respectively. The study examined the frequency of citations based on policy institutional domains, such as intergovernmental organizations, national and domestic governmental organizations, and nongovernmental organizations (think tanks and academic institutions).ResultsThe World Health Organization (WHO) stood out as the most notable institution citing COVID-19-related research outputs. The WHO actively sought and disseminated information regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. The COVID-19 vaccine citation network exhibited the most extensive connections in terms of degree centrality, 2-local eigenvector centrality, and eigenvector centrality among the 3 key terms. The Netherlands, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia were the countries that sought and shared the most information on COVID-19 vaccines, likely due to their high numbers of COVID-19 cases. Developing nations, although gaining quicker access to COVID-19 vaccine information, appeared to be relatively isolated from the enriched COVID-19 pandemic content in the global network.ConclusionsThe global scientific network ecology during the COVID-19 pandemic revealed distinct types of links primarily centered around the WHO. Western countries demonstrated effective networking practices in constructing these networks. The prominent position of the key term "COVID-19 vaccine" demonstrates that nation-states align with global authority regardless of their national contexts. In summary, the citation networking practices of policy agencies have the potential to uncover the global knowledge distribution structure as a proxy for the networking strategy employed during a pandemic.

Project description:BackgroundSparse relative effectiveness evidence is a frequent problem in Health Technology Assessment (HTA). Where evidence directly pertaining to the decision problem is sparse, it may be feasible to expand the evidence-base to include studies that relate to the decision problem only indirectly: for instance, when there is no evidence on a comparator, evidence on other treatments of the same molecular class could be used; similarly, a decision on children may borrow-strength from evidence on adults. Usually, in HTA, such indirect evidence is either included by ignoring any differences ('lumping') or not included at all ('splitting'). However, a range of more sophisticated methods exists, primarily in the biostatistics literature. The objective of this study is to identify and classify the breadth of the available information-sharing methods.MethodsForwards and backwards citation-mining techniques were used on a set of seminal papers on the topic of information-sharing. Papers were included if they specified (network) meta-analytic methods for combining information from distinct populations, interventions, outcomes or study-designs.ResultsOverall, 89 papers were included. A plethora of evidence synthesis methods have been used for information-sharing. Most papers (n=79) described methods that shared information on relative treatment effects. Amongst these, there was a strong emphasis on methods for information-sharing across multiple outcomes (n=42) and treatments (n=25), with fewer papers focusing on study-designs (n=23) or populations (n=8). We categorise and discuss the methods under four 'core' relationships of information-sharing: functional, exchangeability-based, prior-based and multivariate relationships, and explain the assumptions made within each of these core approaches.ConclusionsThis study highlights the range of information-sharing methods available. These methods often impose more moderate assumptions than lumping or splitting. Hence, the degree of information-sharing that they impose could potentially be considered more appropriate. Our identification of four 'core' methods of information-sharing allows for an improved understanding of the assumptions underpinning the different methods. Further research is required to understand how the methods differ in terms of the strength of sharing they impose and the implications of this for health care decisions.

Dataset Information

Application description and policy model in collaborative environment for sharing of information on epidemiological and clinical research data sets.

Publications

Application description and policy model in collaborative environment for sharing of information on epidemiological and clinical research data sets.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets