Advertisement

Developing and Promoting Data Standards for Clinical Research

  • Rachel L. RichessonEmail author
  • Cecil O. Lynch
  • W. Ed Hammond
Chapter
Part of the Health Informatics book series (HI)

Abstract

This chapter describes the importance of data standards in clinical research, particularly for streamlining regulatory oversight and enabling research that is conducted using electronic health record systems in “real-world settings.” Standards are needed to exchange data between partners with preserved meaning and to enable accurate analytics, a core aim of research. There are different types of standards and numerous organizations – national, international, and global – that develop them. The coordination and harmonization of these efforts will be necessary to fully realize an efficient clinical research system that is synergistic with healthcare systems in the USA and abroad. We highlight important collaborations that are influencing the development and use of clinical and research standards to solve significant and outstanding scientific, societal, and business challenges of biomedical research and population health.

Keywords

Clinical research data standards Standards development Data exchange Healthcare informatics Clinical research informatics 

References

  1. 1.
    ICH. Information paper. Step 3 Release E2B(R3). Revision of electronic submission of individual case safety reports: status and regional requirements update. Geneva; 2011.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    CDISC. Therapeutic area standards. 2018. [cited 2018 July 1]. Available from: https://www.cdisc.org/standards/therapeutic-areas.
  3. 3.
    Richesson RL, Fung KW, Krischer JP. Heterogeneous but “standard” coding systems for adverse events: issues in achieving interoperability between apples and oranges. Contemp Clin Trials. 2008;29(5):635–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hammond WE, et al. Integration of a computer-based patient record system into the primary care setting. Comput Nurs. 1997;15(2 Suppl):S61–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aronson AR. Effective mapping of biomedical text to the UMLS Metathesaurus: the MetaMap program. Proc AMIA Symp. 2001:17–21.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    PCORnet. PCORnet common data model (CDM). Why, what, and how? 2015 [cited 2015 Aug 30]. Available from: http://www.pcornet.org/pcornet-common-data-model/.
  7. 7.
    OHSDI. OMOP common data model. 2015. [cited 2015 August 30]. Available from: http://www.ohdsi.org/data-standardization/the-common-data-model/.
  8. 8.
    Rijnbeek PR. Converting to a common data model: what is lost in translation?: commentary on “fidelity assessment of a clinical practice research datalink conversion to the OMOP common data model”. Drug Saf. 2014;37(11):893–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chute CG. Medical concept representation. In: Chen H, et al., editors. Medical informatics. Knowledge management and data mining in biomedicine: Springer, New York, U.S; 2005. p. 163–82.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Oliver DE, et al. Representation of change in controlled medical terminologies. Artif Intell Med. 1999;15(1):53–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rachel L. Richesson
    • 1
    Email author
  • Cecil O. Lynch
    • 2
  • W. Ed Hammond
    • 3
  1. 1.Duke University School of NursingDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Accenture DigitalSan FranciscoUSA
  3. 3.Duke Center for Health Informatics, CTSIDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations