Dataset Information

Consensus-Driven Development of a Terminology for Biobanking, the Duke Experience.

ABSTRACT: Biobanking at Duke University has existed for decades and has grown over time in silos and based on specialized needs, as is true with most biomedical research centers. These silos developed informatics systems to support their own individual requirements, with no regard for semantic or syntactic interoperability. Duke undertook an initiative to implement an enterprise-wide biobanking information system to serve its many diverse biobanking entities. A significant part of this initiative was the development of a common terminology for use in the commercial software platform. Common terminology provides the foundation for interoperability across biobanks for data and information sharing. We engaged experts in research, informatics, and biobanking through a consensus-driven process to agree on 361 terms and their definitions that encompass the lifecycle of a biospecimen. Existing standards, common terms, and data elements from published articles provided a foundation on which to build the biobanking terminology; a broader set of stakeholders then provided additional input and feedback in a secondary vetting process. The resulting standardized biobanking terminology is now available for sharing with the biobanking community to serve as a foundation for other institutions who are considering a similar initiative.

SUBMITTER: Ellis H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5397220 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Consensus-Driven Development of a Terminology for Biobanking, the Duke Experience.

Ellis Helena H Joshi Mary-Beth MB Lynn Aenoch J AJ Walden Anita A

Biopreservation and biobanking 20170324 2

Biobanking at Duke University has existed for decades and has grown over time in silos and based on specialized needs, as is true with most biomedical research centers. These silos developed informatics systems to support their own individual requirements, with no regard for semantic or syntactic interoperability. Duke undertook an initiative to implement an enterprise-wide biobanking information system to serve its many diverse biobanking entities. A significant part of this initiative was the ...[more]

PMID: 28338350

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionUnlike antibiotic and perfusion support, guidelines for sepsis source control lack high-quality evidence and are ungraded. Internally valid administrative data methods are needed to identify cases representing source control procedures to evaluate outcomes.MethodsOver five modified Delphi rounds, two independent reviewers identified Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes pertinent to source control. In each round, codes with perfect agreement were retained or excluded, whereas disagreements were reviewed by the panelists. Manual review of 400 patient records meeting Sepsis-3 criteria (2010-2017) clinically adjudicated which encounters included source control procedures (gold standard). The performance of consensus codes was compared with the gold standard to assess sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and likelihood ratios.ResultsOf 5752 CPT codes, 609 consensus codes represented source control procedures. Of 400 hospitalizations for sepsis, 39 (9.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 7.0%-13.1%) underwent gold standard source control procedures and 29 (7.3%; 95% CI 4.9-10.3%) consensus code-defined source control procedures. Thirty consensus codes were identified (20.0% gastrointestinal/intraabdominal, 10.0% genitourinary, 13.3% hepatopancreatobiliary, 23.3% orthopedic/cranial, 23.3% soft tissue, and 10.0% intrathoracic), which had 61.5% (95% CI 44.6%-76.6%) sensitivity, 98.6% (95% CI 96.8%-99.6%) specificity, 83.2% (95% CI 66.6%-92.4%) positive, and 95.9% (95% CI 93.9%-97.2%) negative predictive values. With pretest probability at sample prevalence, an identified consensus code had a posttest probability of 83.0% (95% CI 66.0%-92.0%), whereas consensus code absence had a probability of 4.0% (95% CI 3.0-6.0) for undergoing a source control procedure.ConclusionsUsing modified Delphi methodology, we created and validated CPT codes identifying source control procedures, providing a framework for evaluation of the surgical care of patients with sepsis.

Project description:Misophonia is characterized by decreased tolerance and accompanying defensive motivational system responding to certain aversive sounds and contextual cues associated with such stimuli, typically repetitive oral (e. g., eating sounds) or nasal (e.g., breathing sounds) stimuli. Responses elicit significant psychological distress and impairment in functioning, and include acute increases in (a) negative affect (e.g., anger, anxiety, and disgust), (b) physiological arousal (e.g., sympathetic nervous system activation), and (c) overt behavior (e.g., escape behavior and verbal aggression toward individuals generating triggers). A major barrier to research and treatment of misophonia is the lack of rigorously validated assessment measures. As such, the primary purpose of this study was to develop and psychometrically validate a self-report measure of misophonia, the Duke Misophonia Questionnaire (DMQ). There were two phases of measure development. In Phase 1, items were generated and iteratively refined from a combination of the scientific literature and qualitative feedback from misophonia sufferers, their family members, and professional experts. In Phase 2, a large community sample of adults (n = 424) completed DMQ candidate items and other measures needed for psychometric analyses. A series of iterative analytic procedures (e.g., factor analyses and IRT) were used to derive final DMQ items and scales. The final DMQ has 86 items and includes subscales: (1) Trigger frequency (16 items), (2) Affective Responses (5 items), (3) Physiological Responses (8 items), (4) Cognitive Responses (10 items), (5) Coping Before (6 items), (6) Coping During (10 items), (7) Coping After (5 items), (8) Impairment (12 items), and Beliefs (14 items). Composite scales were derived for overall Symptom Severity (combined Affective, Physiological, and Cognitive subscales) and Coping (combined the three Coping subscales). Depending on the needs of researchers or clinicians, the DMQ may be use in full form, individual subscales, or with the derived composite scales.

Project description:OBJECTIVE: To provide a clear terminology and classification of muscle injuries in order to facilitate effective communication among medical practitioners and development of systematic treatment strategies. METHODS: Thirty native English-speaking scientists and team doctors of national and first division professional sports teams were asked to complete a questionnaire on muscle injuries to evaluate the currently used terminology of athletic muscle injury. In addition, a consensus meeting of international sports medicine experts was established to develop practical and scientific definitions of muscle injuries as well as a new and comprehensive classification system. RESULTS: The response rate of the survey was 63%. The responses confirmed the marked variability in the use of the terminology relating to muscle injury, with the most obvious inconsistencies for the term strain. In the consensus meeting, practical and systematic terms were defined and established. In addition, a new comprehensive classification system was developed, which differentiates between four types: functional muscle disorders (type 1: overexertion-related and type 2: neuromuscular muscle disorders) describing disorders without macroscopic evidence of fibre tear and structural muscle injuries (type 3: partial tears and type 4: (sub)total tears/tendinous avulsions) with macroscopic evidence of fibre tear, that is, structural damage. Subclassifications are presented for each type. CONCLUSIONS: A consistent English terminology as well as a comprehensive classification system for athletic muscle injuries which is proven in the daily practice are presented. This will help to improve clarity of communication for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes and can serve as the basis for future comparative studies to address the continued lack of systematic information on muscle injuries in the literature. WHAT ARE THE NEW THINGS: Consensus definitions of the terminology which is used in the field of muscle injuries as well as a new comprehensive classification system which clearly defines types of athletic muscle injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Expert opinion, Level V.

Dataset Information

Consensus-Driven Development of a Terminology for Biobanking, the Duke Experience.

Publications

Consensus-Driven Development of a Terminology for Biobanking, the Duke Experience.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets