Achieving Data Liquidity: Lessons Learned from Analysis of 38 Clinical Registries (The Duke-Pew Data Interoperability Project.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:To assess the current state of clinical data interoperability, we evaluated
the use of data standards across 38 large professional society registries. METHODS:The
analysis included 4 primary components: 1) environmental scan, 2) abstraction and
cross-tabulation of clinical concepts and corresponding data elements from registry
case report forms, dictionaries, and / or data models, 3) cross-tabulation of same
across national common data models, and 4) specifying data element metadata to achieve
native data interoperability. RESULTS:The registry analysis identified approximately
50 core clinical concepts. None were captured using the same data representation across
all registries, and there was little implementation of data standards. To improve
technical implementation, we specified 13 key metadata for each concept to be used
to achieve data consistency. CONCLUSION:The registry community has not benefitted
from and does not contribute to interoperability efforts. A common, authoritative
process to specify and implement common data elements is greatly needed.
Type
Journal articlePermalink
https://hdl.handle.net/10161/20585Collections
More Info
Show full item recordScholars@Duke
James Enlou Tcheng
Professor of Medicine
In addition to my clinical responsibilities as an interventional cardiologist, my
research interests include the study of antithrombotic therapies in cardiovascular
disease and biomedical informatics and information technologies. My research is
applied (clinical research), primarily focusing on the evaluation of technologies
in the clinical arena. I have participated in numerous clinical trials and have also
conducted several multicenter studies, including the EPIC, P

Articles written by Duke faculty are made available through the campus open access policy. For more information see: Duke Open Access Policy
Rights for Collection: Scholarly Articles
Works are deposited here by their authors, and represent their research and opinions, not that of Duke University. Some materials and descriptions may include offensive content. More info