Assessing the FAIRness of Metabolic Bariatric Surgery Registries: a Comparative Analysis of Data Dictionaries from the UK, Germany, France, Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q1 SURGERY Obesity Surgery Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-04 DOI:10.1007/s11695-025-07701-2
Bart Torensma, Mohamed Hany, Jodok M Fink, Ahmed R Ahmed, Ronald S L Liem, Andrea Lazzati, François Pattou, Johan Ottosson, Martijn G Kersloot
{"title":"Assessing the FAIRness of Metabolic Bariatric Surgery Registries: a Comparative Analysis of Data Dictionaries from the UK, Germany, France, Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden.","authors":"Bart Torensma, Mohamed Hany, Jodok M Fink, Ahmed R Ahmed, Ronald S L Liem, Andrea Lazzati, François Pattou, Johan Ottosson, Martijn G Kersloot","doi":"10.1007/s11695-025-07701-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study is part of an initiative to improve the FAIRness (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, Reusability) of metabolic bariatric surgery (MBS) registries globally. It explores the extent to which European registry data can be manually integrated without first making them FAIR and assesses these registries' current level of FAIRness. The findings establish a baseline for evaluation and provide recommendations to enhance MBS data management practices.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data dictionaries from five national MBS registries in Germany, France, the Netherlands, the UK, and a combined registry for Scandinavia (Norway and Sweden) were evaluated regarding their ability to manually integrate registry datasets with one another. The FAIR Data Maturity Model from the Research Data Alliance (RDA) FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group was used to assess the FAIRness of both metadata and data of the registries.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The registries showed significant variability in variables and coding structures, with inconsistent numerical formats and without linkage to international standards such as SNOMED CT, LOINC, or NCIt, making data integration labor-intensive and assumption-heavy. Despite the presence of data dictionaries, all registries failed the FAIR assessment because machine-readable data was unavailable, and only human-readable metadata was available in the form of data dictionaries in a spreadsheet.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study reveals significant inconsistencies in data structuring and a failure to comply with the FAIR Principles, which limit effective data analysis and comparison. This emphasizes the critical need for standardized data management practices. We recommend four next steps to improve the FAIRness of MBS registries: (1) annotate data elements using standardized terminology systems, (2) deposit registry-level metadata in a repository, (3) request globally unique and persistent identifiers for datasets, and (4) define access restrictions.</p>","PeriodicalId":19460,"journal":{"name":"Obesity Surgery","volume":" ","pages":"1036-1044"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11906509/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Obesity Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-025-07701-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: This study is part of an initiative to improve the FAIRness (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, Reusability) of metabolic bariatric surgery (MBS) registries globally. It explores the extent to which European registry data can be manually integrated without first making them FAIR and assesses these registries' current level of FAIRness. The findings establish a baseline for evaluation and provide recommendations to enhance MBS data management practices.

Methods: Data dictionaries from five national MBS registries in Germany, France, the Netherlands, the UK, and a combined registry for Scandinavia (Norway and Sweden) were evaluated regarding their ability to manually integrate registry datasets with one another. The FAIR Data Maturity Model from the Research Data Alliance (RDA) FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group was used to assess the FAIRness of both metadata and data of the registries.

Results: The registries showed significant variability in variables and coding structures, with inconsistent numerical formats and without linkage to international standards such as SNOMED CT, LOINC, or NCIt, making data integration labor-intensive and assumption-heavy. Despite the presence of data dictionaries, all registries failed the FAIR assessment because machine-readable data was unavailable, and only human-readable metadata was available in the form of data dictionaries in a spreadsheet.

Conclusion: Our study reveals significant inconsistencies in data structuring and a failure to comply with the FAIR Principles, which limit effective data analysis and comparison. This emphasizes the critical need for standardized data management practices. We recommend four next steps to improve the FAIRness of MBS registries: (1) annotate data elements using standardized terminology systems, (2) deposit registry-level metadata in a repository, (3) request globally unique and persistent identifiers for datasets, and (4) define access restrictions.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估代谢性减肥手术登记的公平性:对来自英国、德国、法国、荷兰、挪威和瑞典的数据词典的比较分析
背景:本研究是提高全球代谢减肥手术(MBS)登记公平性(可查找性、可访问性、互操作性、可重用性)倡议的一部分。它探讨了欧洲注册表数据在不首先使其公平的情况下可以人工集成的程度,并评估了这些注册表当前的公平水平。研究结果为评估建立了基线,并为加强MBS数据管理实践提供了建议。方法:对来自德国、法国、荷兰、英国五个国家MBS注册中心和斯堪的纳维亚(挪威和瑞典)联合注册中心的数据字典进行评估,以评估其手动整合注册中心数据集的能力。使用来自研究数据联盟(RDA) FAIR数据成熟度模型工作组的FAIR数据成熟度模型来评估注册表元数据和数据的公平性。结果:这些注册表在变量和编码结构上表现出显著的差异,数字格式不一致,没有与国际标准(如SNOMED CT、LOINC或NCIt)联系,使得数据集成劳动密集型和假设繁重。尽管存在数据字典,但所有注册中心都未能通过FAIR评估,因为机器可读的数据不可用,只有人类可读的元数据以电子表格中的数据字典的形式可用。结论:我们的研究揭示了数据结构的重大不一致和未能遵守公平原则,这限制了有效的数据分析和比较。这强调了对标准化数据管理实践的迫切需求。我们建议接下来的四个步骤来提高MBS注册表的公平性:(1)使用标准化术语系统注释数据元素,(2)将注册表级元数据存储在存储库中,(3)请求数据集的全局唯一和持久标识符,以及(4)定义访问限制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Obesity Surgery
Obesity Surgery 医学-外科
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
24.10%
发文量
567
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Obesity Surgery is the official journal of the International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and metabolic disorders (IFSO). A journal for bariatric/metabolic surgeons, Obesity Surgery provides an international, interdisciplinary forum for communicating the latest research, surgical and laparoscopic techniques, for treatment of massive obesity and metabolic disorders. Topics covered include original research, clinical reports, current status, guidelines, historical notes, invited commentaries, letters to the editor, medicolegal issues, meeting abstracts, modern surgery/technical innovations, new concepts, reviews, scholarly presentations and opinions. Obesity Surgery benefits surgeons performing obesity/metabolic surgery, general surgeons and surgical residents, endoscopists, anesthetists, support staff, nurses, dietitians, psychiatrists, psychologists, plastic surgeons, internists including endocrinologists and diabetologists, nutritional scientists, and those dealing with eating disorders.
期刊最新文献
Correction: Machine Learning Prediction Models for Weight Loss Outcomes after Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Food Consumption by Processing Levels in Adults Two or More Years After Sleeve Gastrectomy: Associations with Surgical Outcomes and Eating Behaviors. Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass versus Sleeve Gastrectomy for Cardiometabolic Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Comparative Animal Study of the Performance of Two Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty Devices. Effects of Time-Restricted Eating With Calorie Restriction Versus Calorie Restriction on Health Outcomes in Patients With Weight Regain Post-Sleeve Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1