4.4 Review

Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) for Interoperability in Health Research: Systematic Review

期刊

JMIR MEDICAL INFORMATICS
卷 10, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

JMIR PUBLICATIONS, INC
DOI: 10.2196/35724

关键词

Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources; FHIR; interoperability; health research; health care; health information technology; research; clinical research; public health; epidemiology

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation) [NFDI 13/1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study provides a systematic review of the use of Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) in health research. The review found that FHIR can be implemented in health research and has broad applicability. FHIR can improve data interoperability through data standardization and providing generic solutions.
Background: The standard Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) is widely used in health information technology. However, its use as a standard for health research is still less prevalent. To use existing data sources more efficiently for health research, data interoperability becomes increasingly important. FHIR provides solutions by offering resource domains such as Public Health & Research and Evidence-Based Medicine while using already established web technologies. Therefore, FHIR could help standardize data across different data sources and improve interoperability in health research.Objective: The aim of our study was to provide a systematic review of existing literature and determine the current state of FHIR implementations in health research and possible future directions.Methods: We searched the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, and Cochrane Library databases for studies published from 2011 to 2022. Studies investigating the use of FHIR in health research were included. Articles published before 2011, abstracts, reviews, editorials, and expert opinions were excluded. We followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and registered this study with PROSPERO (CRD42021235393). Data synthesis was done in tables and figures.Results: We identified a total of 998 studies, of which 49 studies were eligible for inclusion. Of the 49 studies, most (73%, n=36) covered the domain of clinical research, whereas the remaining studies focused on public health or epidemiology (6%, n=3) or did not specify their research domain (20%, n=10). Studies used FHIR for data capture (29%, n=14), standardization of data (41%, n=20), analysis (12%, n=6), recruitment (14%, n=7), and consent management (4%, n=2). Most (55%, 27/49) of the studies had a generic approach, and 55% (12/22) of the studies focusing on specific medical specialties (infectious disease, genomics, oncology, environmental health, imaging, and pulmonary hypertension) reported their solutions to be conferrable to other use cases. Most (63%, 31/49) of the studies reported using additional data models or terminologies: Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine Clinical Terms (29%, n=14), Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (37%, n=18), International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision (18%, n=9), Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership common data model (12%, n=6), and others (43%, n=21). Only 4 (8%) studies used a FHIR resource from the domain Public Health & Research. Limitations using FHIR included the possible change in the content of FHIR resources, safety, legal matters, and the need for a FHIR server.Conclusions: Our review found that FHIR can be implemented in health research, and the areas of application are broad and generalizable in most use cases. The implementation of international terminologies was common, and other standards such as the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership common data model could be used as a complement to FHIR. Limitations such as the change of FHIR content, lack of FHIR implementation, safety, and legal matters need to be addressed in future releases to expand the use of FHIR and, therefore, interoperability in health research.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据