Dataset Information

The BioStudies database-one stop shop for all data supporting a life sciences study.

ABSTRACT: BioStudies (www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies) is a new public database that organizes data from biological studies. Typically, but not exclusively, a study is associated with a publication. BioStudies offers a simple way to describe the study structure, and provides flexible data deposition tools and data access interfaces. The actual data can be stored either in BioStudies or remotely, or both. BioStudies imports supplementary data from Europe PMC, and is a resource for authors and publishers for packaging data during the manuscript preparation process. It also can support data management needs of collaborative projects. The growth in multiomics experiments and other multi-faceted approaches to life sciences research mean that studies result in a diversity of data outputs in multiple locations. BioStudies presents a solution to ensuring that all these data and the associated publication(s) can be found coherently in the longer term.

SUBMITTER: Sarkans U

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5753238 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The BioStudies database-one stop shop for all data supporting a life sciences study.

Sarkans Ugis U Gostev Mikhail M Athar Awais A Behrangi Ehsan E Melnichuk Olga O Ali Ahmed A Minguet Jasmine J Rada Juan Camillo JC Snow Catherine C Tikhonov Andrew A Brazma Alvis A McEntyre Johanna J

Nucleic acids research 20180101 D1

BioStudies (www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies) is a new public database that organizes data from biological studies. Typically, but not exclusively, a study is associated with a publication. BioStudies offers a simple way to describe the study structure, and provides flexible data deposition tools and data access interfaces. The actual data can be stored either in BioStudies or remotely, or both. BioStudies imports supplementary data from Europe PMC, and is a resource for authors and publishers for packa ...[more]

PMID: 29069414

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPolicymakers, stakeholders and researchers have not been able to find research evidence about health systems using an easily understood taxonomy of topics, know when they have conducted a comprehensive search of the many types of research evidence relevant to them, or rapidly identify decision-relevant information in their search results.MethodsTo address these gaps, we developed an approach to building a 'one-stop shop' for research evidence about health systems. We developed a taxonomy of health system topics and iteratively refined it by drawing on existing categorization schemes and by using it to categorize progressively larger bundles of research evidence. We identified systematic reviews, systematic review protocols, and review-derived products through searches of Medline, hand searches of several databases indexing systematic reviews, hand searches of journals, and continuous scanning of listservs and websites. We developed an approach to providing 'added value' to existing content (e.g., coding systematic reviews according to the countries in which included studies were conducted) and to expanding the types of evidence eligible for inclusion (e.g., economic evaluations and health system descriptions). Lastly, we developed an approach to continuously updating the online one-stop shop in seven supported languages.ResultsThe taxonomy is organized by governance, financial, and delivery arrangements and by implementation strategies. The 'one-stop shop', called Health Systems Evidence, contains a comprehensive inventory of evidence briefs, overviews of systematic reviews, systematic reviews, systematic review protocols, registered systematic review titles, economic evaluations and costing studies, health reform descriptions and health system descriptions, and many types of added-value coding. It is continuously updated and new content is regularly translated into Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.ConclusionsPolicymakers and stakeholders can now easily access and use a wide variety of types of research evidence about health systems to inform decision-making and advocacy. Researchers and research funding agencies can use Health Systems Evidence to identify gaps in the current stock of research evidence and domains that could benefit from primary research, systematic reviews, and review overviews.

Project description:ObjectiveTo contribute to the current knowledge on how a broad range of services offered by general practitioners (GPs) may contribute to the patient perceived quality and, hence, the potential benefits of primary care.Study settingBetween 2011 and 2013, primary care data were collected among GPs and their patients in 31 European countries, plus Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. In these countries, GPs are the main providers of primary care, mostly specialized in family medicine and working in the ambulatory setting.Study designIn this cross-sectional study, questionnaires were completed by 7,183 GPs and 61,931 visiting patients. Moreover, 7,270 patients answered questions about what they find important (their values). In the analyses of patient experiences, we adjusted for patients' values in each country to measure patient perceived quality. Perceived quality was measured regarding five areas: accessibility and continuity of care, doctor-patient communication, patient involvement in decision making, and comprehensiveness of care. The range of GP services was measured in relation to four areas: (1) to what extent they are the first contact to the health care system for patients in need of care, (2) their involvement in treatment and follow-up of acute and chronic conditions, in other words treatment of diseases, (3) their involvement in minor technical procedures, and (4) their involvement in preventive treatments.Extraction methodsData of the patients were linked to the data of the GPs. Multilevel modeling was used to construct scale scores for the experiences of patients in the five areas of quality and the range of services of GPs. In these four-level models, items were nested within patients, nested in GP practices, nested in countries. The relationship between the range of services and the experiences of patients was analyzed in three-level multilevel models, also taking into account the values of patients.Principal findingsIn countries where GPs offer a broader range of services patients perceive better accessibility, continuity, and comprehensiveness of care, and more involvement in decision making. No associations were found between the range of services and the patient perceived communication with their GP. The range of GP services mostly explained the variation between countries in the areas of patient perceived accessibility and continuity of care.ConclusionsThis study showed that in countries where GP practices serve as a "one-stop shop," patients perceive better quality of care, especially in the areas of accessibility and continuity of care. Therefore, primary care in a country is expected to benefit from investments in a broader range of services of GPs or other primary care physicians.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most common cancer diagnosed in white populations worldwide. The rising incidence of BCC is becoming a major worldwide public health problem. Therefore, there is a need for more efficient management. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this research is to assess the efficacy and safety of a one-stop-shop (OSS) concept, using real-time in vivo reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) (Vivascope 1500; Lucid Technologies, Henrietta, NY, USA) as a diagnostic tool, prior to surgical management of new primary BCCs. METHODS:This is a prospective non-inferiority multi-center RCT designed to compare the "OSS concept using RCM" to current standards of care in diagnosing and treating clinically suspected BCC. Patients ? 18 years attending our outpatient clinic at the Department of Dermatology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, and the Department of Dermatology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital (Amsterdam, The Netherlands) with a clinically suspected new primary BCC lesion will be considered for enrollment using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, and will be randomly allocated to the experimental or control group. The main outcome parameter is the assessment of incomplete surgical excision margins on the final pathology report of confirmed BCC lesions (either by punch biopsy or RCM imaging). Other outcome measures include diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of RCM for diagnosing BCC and dividing between subtypes, and throughput time. Patient satisfaction data will be collected postoperatively after 3 months during routine follow-up. RESULTS:This research is investigator-initiated and received ethics approval. Patient recruitment started in February 2015, and we expect all study-related activities to be completed by fall 2015. CONCLUSIONS:This RCT is the first to examine an OSS concept using RCM for diagnosing and treating clinically suspected BCC lesions. Results of this research are expected to have applications in evidence-based practice for the increasing number of patients suffering from BCC and possibly lead to a more efficient disease management strategy. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02285790; https://clinicaltrial.gov/ct2/show/NCT02285790 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6b2LfDKWu).

Dataset Information

The BioStudies database-one stop shop for all data supporting a life sciences study.

Publications

The BioStudies database-one stop shop for all data supporting a life sciences study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets