OBJECTIVE: Electronically linked datasets have become an important part of clinical research. Information from multiple sources can be used to identify comorbid conditions and patient outcomes, measure use of healthcare services, and enrich demographic and clinical variables of interest. Innovative approaches for creating research infrastructure beyond a traditional data system are necessary. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Records from a large healthcare system's enterprise data warehouse (EDW) were linked to a statewide population database, and a master subject index was created. The authors evaluate the linkage, along with the impact of missing information in EDW records and the coverage of the population database. The makeup of the EDW and population database provides a subset of cancer records that exist in both resources, which allows a cancer-specific evaluation of the linkage. RESULTS: About 3.4 million records (60.8%) in the EDW were linked to the population database with a minimum accuracy of 96.3%. It was estimated that approximately 24.8% of target records were absent from the population database, which enabled the effect of the amount and type of information missing from a record on the linkage to be estimated. However, 99% of the records from the oncology data mart linked; they had fewer missing fields and this correlated positively with the number of patient visits. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: A general-purpose research infrastructure was created which allows disease-specific cohorts to be identified. The usefulness of creating an index between institutions is that it allows each institution to maintain control and confidentiality of their own information.
OBJECTIVE: Electronically linked datasets have become an important part of clinical research. Information from multiple sources can be used to identify comorbid conditions and patient outcomes, measure use of healthcare services, and enrich demographic and clinical variables of interest. Innovative approaches for creating research infrastructure beyond a traditional data system are necessary. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Records from a large healthcare system's enterprise data warehouse (EDW) were linked to a statewide population database, and a master subject index was created. The authors evaluate the linkage, along with the impact of missing information in EDW records and the coverage of the population database. The makeup of the EDW and population database provides a subset of cancer records that exist in both resources, which allows a cancer-specific evaluation of the linkage. RESULTS: About 3.4 million records (60.8%) in the EDW were linked to the population database with a minimum accuracy of 96.3%. It was estimated that approximately 24.8% of target records were absent from the population database, which enabled the effect of the amount and type of information missing from a record on the linkage to be estimated. However, 99% of the records from the oncology data mart linked; they had fewer missing fields and this correlated positively with the number of patient visits. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: A general-purpose research infrastructure was created which allows disease-specific cohorts to be identified. The usefulness of creating an index between institutions is that it allows each institution to maintain control and confidentiality of their own information.
Authors: Jeanette F Winther; John D Boice; Jane Christensen; Kirsten Frederiksen; John J Mulvihill; Marilyn Stovall; Jørgen H Olsen Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2010-12-15 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: R Wooster; S L Neuhausen; J Mangion; Y Quirk; D Ford; N Collins; K Nguyen; S Seal; T Tran; D Averill Journal: Science Date: 1994-09-30 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Stephen L Guthery; Geraldine Mineau; Richard Pimentel; Marc S Williams; Richard A Kerber Journal: Inflamm Bowel Dis Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 5.325
Authors: Y Miki; J Swensen; D Shattuck-Eidens; P A Futreal; K Harshman; S Tavtigian; Q Liu; C Cochran; L M Bennett; W Ding Journal: Science Date: 1994-10-07 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: J Groden; A Thliveris; W Samowitz; M Carlson; L Gelbert; H Albertsen; G Joslyn; J Stevens; L Spirio; M Robertson Journal: Cell Date: 1991-08-09 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: L A Cannon-Albright; D E Goldgar; L J Meyer; C M Lewis; D E Anderson; J W Fountain; M E Hegi; R W Wiseman; E M Petty; A E Bale Journal: Science Date: 1992-11-13 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Craig C Earle; Ann B Nattinger; Arnold L Potosky; Kathleen Lang; Rajiv Mallick; Mark Berger; Joan L Warren Journal: Med Care Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Erel Joffe; Michael J Byrne; Phillip Reeder; Jorge R Herskovic; Craig W Johnson; Allison B McCoy; Dean F Sittig; Elmer V Bernstam Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-05-23 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Hye-Chung Kum; Ashok Krishnamurthy; Ashwin Machanavajjhala; Michael K Reiter; Stanley Ahalt Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-11-07 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Judy Y Ou; Rochelle R Smits-Seemann; Yelena P Wu; Jennifer Wright; Anne C Kirchhoff Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2017-11-29 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Thomas R Campion; Sean T Pompea; Scott P Turner; Evan T Sholle; Curtis L Cole; Rainu Kaushal Journal: AMIA Jt Summits Transl Sci Proc Date: 2019-05-06
Authors: John F Hurdle; Stephen C Haroldsen; Andrew Hammer; Cindy Spigle; Alison M Fraser; Geraldine P Mineau; Samir J Courdy Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2012-10-11 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Heidi A Hanson; Erik N Mayer; Ross E Anderson; Kenneth I Aston; Douglas T Carrell; Justin Berger; William T Lowrance; Ken R Smith; James M Hotaling Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2016-12-06 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Heidi A Hanson; Claire L Leiser; Brock O'Neil; Christopher Martin; Sumati Gupta; Ken R Smith; Christopher Dechet; William T Lowrance; Michael J Madsen; Nicola J Camp Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2020-02-25 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Mehmet Kuzu; Murat Kantarcioglu; Elizabeth Ashley Durham; Csaba Toth; Bradley Malin Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2012-07-30 Impact factor: 4.497