澳大利亚创伤性脑损伤倡议:工作原则声明和神经疾病数据字典定义方法快速审查

IF 1.8 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Neurotrauma reports Pub Date : 2024-04-01 DOI:10.1089/neur.2023.0116
Matthew K. Bagg, Amelia J. Hicks, S. Hellewell, Jennie L Ponsford, Natasha A. Lannin, Terence J. O'Brien, Peter A. Cameron, D. J. Cooper, N. Rushworth, Belinda J Gabbe, Melinda Fitzgerald
{"title":"澳大利亚创伤性脑损伤倡议:工作原则声明和神经疾病数据字典定义方法快速审查","authors":"Matthew K. Bagg, Amelia J. Hicks, S. Hellewell, Jennie L Ponsford, Natasha A. Lannin, Terence J. O'Brien, Peter A. Cameron, D. J. Cooper, N. Rushworth, Belinda J Gabbe, Melinda Fitzgerald","doi":"10.1089/neur.2023.0116","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Australian Traumatic Brain Injury Initiative (AUS-TBI) aims to develop a health informatics approach to collect data predictive of outcomes for persons with moderate-severe TBI across Australia. Central to this approach is a data dictionary; however, no systematic reviews of methods to define and develop data dictionaries exist to-date. This rapid systematic review aimed to identify and characterize methods for designing data dictionaries to collect outcomes or variables in persons with neurological conditions. Database searches were conducted from inception through October 2021. Records were screened in two stages against set criteria to identify methods to define data dictionaries for neurological conditions (International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision: 08, 22, and 23). Standardized data were extracted. Processes were checked at each stage by independent review of a random 25% of records. Consensus was reached through discussion where necessary. Thirty-nine initiatives were identified across 29 neurological conditions. No single established or recommended method for defining a data dictionary was identified. Nine initiatives conducted systematic reviews to collate information before implementing a consensus process. Thirty-seven initiatives consulted with end-users. Methods of consultation were “roundtable” discussion (n = 30); with facilitation (n = 16); that was iterative (n = 27); and frequently conducted in-person (n = 27). Researcher stakeholders were involved in all initiatives and clinicians in 25. Importantly, only six initiatives involved persons with lived experience of TBI and four involved carers. Methods for defining data dictionaries were variable and reporting is sparse. Our findings are instructive for AUS-TBI and can be used to further development of methods for defining data dictionaries.","PeriodicalId":74300,"journal":{"name":"Neurotrauma reports","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Australian Traumatic Brain Injury Initiative: Statement of Working Principles and Rapid Review of Methods to Define Data Dictionaries for Neurological Conditions\",\"authors\":\"Matthew K. Bagg, Amelia J. Hicks, S. Hellewell, Jennie L Ponsford, Natasha A. Lannin, Terence J. O'Brien, Peter A. Cameron, D. J. Cooper, N. Rushworth, Belinda J Gabbe, Melinda Fitzgerald\",\"doi\":\"10.1089/neur.2023.0116\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Australian Traumatic Brain Injury Initiative (AUS-TBI) aims to develop a health informatics approach to collect data predictive of outcomes for persons with moderate-severe TBI across Australia. Central to this approach is a data dictionary; however, no systematic reviews of methods to define and develop data dictionaries exist to-date. This rapid systematic review aimed to identify and characterize methods for designing data dictionaries to collect outcomes or variables in persons with neurological conditions. Database searches were conducted from inception through October 2021. Records were screened in two stages against set criteria to identify methods to define data dictionaries for neurological conditions (International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision: 08, 22, and 23). Standardized data were extracted. Processes were checked at each stage by independent review of a random 25% of records. Consensus was reached through discussion where necessary. Thirty-nine initiatives were identified across 29 neurological conditions. No single established or recommended method for defining a data dictionary was identified. Nine initiatives conducted systematic reviews to collate information before implementing a consensus process. Thirty-seven initiatives consulted with end-users. Methods of consultation were “roundtable” discussion (n = 30); with facilitation (n = 16); that was iterative (n = 27); and frequently conducted in-person (n = 27). Researcher stakeholders were involved in all initiatives and clinicians in 25. Importantly, only six initiatives involved persons with lived experience of TBI and four involved carers. Methods for defining data dictionaries were variable and reporting is sparse. Our findings are instructive for AUS-TBI and can be used to further development of methods for defining data dictionaries.\",\"PeriodicalId\":74300,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neurotrauma reports\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neurotrauma reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1089/neur.2023.0116\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurotrauma reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/neur.2023.0116","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

澳大利亚创伤性脑损伤倡议(Australian Traumatic Brain Injury Initiative,AUS-TBI)旨在开发一种健康信息学方法,以收集可预测全澳中重度创伤性脑损伤患者预后的数据。数据字典是这一方法的核心;然而,迄今为止还没有对定义和开发数据字典的方法进行系统性回顾。本快速系统性综述旨在确定和描述设计数据字典的方法,以收集神经系统疾病患者的结果或变量。数据库搜索从开始到 2021 年 10 月进行。根据设定的标准分两个阶段对记录进行筛选,以确定定义神经系统疾病(国际疾病分类,第 11 次修订:08、22 和 23)数据字典的方法。提取标准化数据。在每个阶段都会对 25% 的随机记录进行独立审查,以检查流程。必要时通过讨论达成共识。在 29 种神经系统疾病中确定了 39 项举措。在定义数据字典方面,没有发现任何既定或推荐的方法。九项计划在实施共识流程之前进行了系统性回顾以整理信息。37 项计划咨询了最终用户。协商方法包括 "圆桌 "讨论(30 人)、协助讨论(16 人)、迭代讨论(27 人)以及经常面谈(27 人)。研究人员参与了所有活动,临床医生参与了 25 项活动。重要的是,只有六项活动有创伤性脑损伤患者参与,四项活动有照护者参与。定义数据字典的方法各不相同,报告也很少。我们的研究结果对澳大拉西亚-创伤后应激障碍具有指导意义,可用于进一步制定数据字典的定义方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The Australian Traumatic Brain Injury Initiative: Statement of Working Principles and Rapid Review of Methods to Define Data Dictionaries for Neurological Conditions
The Australian Traumatic Brain Injury Initiative (AUS-TBI) aims to develop a health informatics approach to collect data predictive of outcomes for persons with moderate-severe TBI across Australia. Central to this approach is a data dictionary; however, no systematic reviews of methods to define and develop data dictionaries exist to-date. This rapid systematic review aimed to identify and characterize methods for designing data dictionaries to collect outcomes or variables in persons with neurological conditions. Database searches were conducted from inception through October 2021. Records were screened in two stages against set criteria to identify methods to define data dictionaries for neurological conditions (International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision: 08, 22, and 23). Standardized data were extracted. Processes were checked at each stage by independent review of a random 25% of records. Consensus was reached through discussion where necessary. Thirty-nine initiatives were identified across 29 neurological conditions. No single established or recommended method for defining a data dictionary was identified. Nine initiatives conducted systematic reviews to collate information before implementing a consensus process. Thirty-seven initiatives consulted with end-users. Methods of consultation were “roundtable” discussion (n = 30); with facilitation (n = 16); that was iterative (n = 27); and frequently conducted in-person (n = 27). Researcher stakeholders were involved in all initiatives and clinicians in 25. Importantly, only six initiatives involved persons with lived experience of TBI and four involved carers. Methods for defining data dictionaries were variable and reporting is sparse. Our findings are instructive for AUS-TBI and can be used to further development of methods for defining data dictionaries.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
Small Molecule Drug C381 Attenuates Brain Vascular Damage Following Repetitive Mild Traumatic Injury. Clinical Impact of an AI Decision Support System for Detection of Intracranial Hemorrhage in CT Scans. Metacognitive Therapy for People Experiencing Persistent Post-Concussion Symptoms Following Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: A Preliminary Multiple Case-Series Study. Multicenter Study Examining Temporal Trends in Traumatic Intracranial Hemorrhage Over Six Years Using Joinpoint Regression. Resilience and Concussion Recovery in Minority Women: Promoting Health Equity.
×
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学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
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