4.6 Article

Practices and perspectives on building integrated data repositories: results from a 2010 CTSA survey

Journal

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000508

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Center for Research Resources, National Institutes of Health (NIH), through the Clinical and Translational Science Awards Program (CTSA), part of the Roadmap Initiative, Re-Engineering the Clinical Research Enterprise
  2. NIH National Center for Research Resources
  3. Duke Translational Medicine Institute [UL1 RR024128]
  4. Oregon Clinical Translational Research Institute [UL1 RR024140]
  5. Scripps Translational Science Institute [UL1 RR025074]
  6. University of Alabama at Birmingham Center for Clinical and Translational Science [UL1 RR025777]
  7. Institute of Translational Health Sciences, University of Washington [UL1 RR025014]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Clinical integrated data repositories (IDRs) are poised to become a foundational element of biomedical and translational research by providing the coordinated data sources necessary to conduct retrospective analytic research and to identify and recruit prospective research subjects. The Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) consortium's Informatics IDR Group conducted a survey of 2010 consortium members to evaluate recent trends in IDR implementation and use to support research between 2008 and 2010. A web-based survey based in part on a prior 2008 survey was developed and deployed to 46 national CTSA centers. A total of 35 separate organizations completed the survey (74%), representing 28 CTSAs and the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center. Survey results suggest that individual organizations are progressing in their approaches to the development, management, and use of IDRs as a means to support a broad array of research. We describe the major trends and emerging practices below.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available