Rationale
Both outcomes researchers and informaticians are concerned with information and data. As such, some of the central challenges to conducting successful comparative effectiveness research can be addressed with informatics solutions.
Methods
Specific informatics solutions which address how data in comparative effectiveness research are enriched, stored, shared, and analyzed are reviewed.
Results
Imaging data can be made more quantitative, uniform, and structured for researchers through the use of lexicons and structured reporting. Secure and scalable storage of research data is enabled through data warehouses and cloud services. There are a number of national efforts to help researchers share research data and analysis tools.
Conclusion
There is a diverse arsenal of informatics tools designed to meet the needs of comparative effective researchers.
Comparative effectiveness research (CER) has become an important priority for imaging and outcomes researchers. A focus on the comparison of existing diagnostic and therapeutic interventions will enable improvement of outcomes while making the best use of increasingly limited resources. However, it is the potentially unique characteristics of comparative effectiveness research that can make it even more challenging than typical research paradigms, such as placebo-controlled clinical trials. How can an investigator reconcile the idea that CER should be applicable to “real-world settings” when comparing interventions with the fact that the clinical and outcomes information found in existing clinical systems are seldom coded, stored, identified, or accessed in ways that are suited or designed for research? How can researcher share such data with others? What are the best ways to analyze such information? Although the success of CER hinges on an investigator’s ability to make the best use of information and knowledge, the success of informatics as a field depends on its ability to identify and address the most worthwhile challenges, such as the ones facing the community of comparative effectiveness researchers. Some of the central challenges to conducting successful CER can be addressed with informatics solutions.
In its most general sense, the field of informatics deals with the management of information and knowledge. The various methods of performing comparative effectiveness research all rely on the ability to marshal key pieces of information from individuals, aggregate them, and harvest generalizable knowledge from that information. Research informatics has long had an impact on the practice of clinical trials and observational studies, but comparative effectiveness researchers face new challenges as analyses of national registries, claims data, and even clinical information play more important roles as sources of evidence. In this setting, the researcher who is prepared to harness the power of the best clinical and research informatics tools can quickly develop an arsenal ideally suited for CER.
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Open full size image
Figure 1
The data lifecycle in comparative effectiveness research with samples of associated informatics tools.
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Enriching the data
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Storing research data
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Sharing data
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Analyzing the data
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Discussion
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Acknowledgment
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
References
1. Channin D.S., Mongkolwat P., Kleper V., et. al.: The Annotation and Image Mark-up Project. Radiology 2009; 253: pp. 590-592.
2. RSNA.org. RadLex: A lexicon for uniform indexing and retrieval of radiology information resources. Available at: http://www.rsna.org/radlex/ . Accessed October 28, 2010.
3. Kundu S., Itkin M., Gervais D.A., et. al.: The IR RadLex Project: an interventional radiology lexicon-a collaborative project of the Radiological Society of North America and the Society of Interventional Radiology. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2009; 20: pp. 433-435.
4. Rubin DL, Channin DS. The RadLex playbook: a nomenclature for radiological imaging (LL-INE2503). Presented at the 96th Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting of the Radiological Society of North America; 2010 Nov 28–Dec 3, Chicago, IL.
5. RSNA.org. Radiology reporting. Available at: http://www.rsna.org/informatics/radreports.cfm . Accessed October 28, 2010.
6. Dang P.A., Kalra M.K., Blake M.A., et. al.: Extraction of recommendation features in radiology with natural language processing: exploratory study. Am J. Roentgenol 2008; 191: pp. 313-320.
7. Thomas B.J., Ouellette H., Halpern E.F., et. al.: Automated computer-assisted categorization of radiology reports. Am J Roentgenol 2005; 184: pp. 687-690.
8. Hripcsak G., Austin J.H.M., Alderson P.O., et. al.: Use of natural language processing to translate clinical information from a database of 889,921 chest radiographic reports. Radiology 2002; 224: pp. 157-163.
9. Minati L., Ghielmetti F., Ciobanu V., et. al.: Bio-image warehouse system: concept and implementation of a diagnosis-based data warehouse for advanced imaging modalities in neuroradiology. J Digit Imaging 2007; 20: pp. 32-41.
10. Wong S.T.C., Hoo K.S., Knowlton R.C., et. al.: Design and applications of a multimodality image data warehouse framework. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2002; 9: pp. 239-254.
11. Erdal S., Rogers P., Santangelo J., et. al.: Data delivery workflow in an academic information warehouse. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2008; pp. 942.
12. Schubart J.: Evaluation of a data warehouse in an academic health sciences center. Int J Medical Informatics 2000; 60: pp. 319-333.
13. Rubin D., Desser T.: A data warehouse for integrating radiologic and pathologic data. J Amer Coll Radiol 2008; 5: pp. 210-217.
14. Andriole K.P., Khorasani R.: Cloud computing: what is it and could it be useful?. J Amer Coll Radiol 2010; 7: pp. 252-254.
15. CIP Survey of Biomedical Imaging Archives - Imaging - Cancer Imaging Program - National Cancer Institute - Confluence Wiki. Available at: https://wiki.nci.nih.gov/display/CIP/CIP+Survey+of+Biomedical+Imaging+Archives . Accessed October 27, 2010.
16. National Biomedical Imaging Archive. Available at: https://imaging.nci.nih.gov/ncia/login.jsf . Accessed October 28, 2010.
17. XNAT. Available at: http://www.xnat.org/ . Accessed October 28, 2010.
18. Marcus D.S., Olsen T.R., Ramaratnam M., et. al.: The Extensible Neuroimaging Archive Toolkit: an informatics platform for managing, exploring, and sharing neuroimaging data. Neuroinformatics 2007; 5: pp. 11-34.
19. MRI Study of Normal Brain Development. Available at: https://nihpd.crbs.ucsd.edu/nihpd/info/index.html . Accessed October 28, 2010.
20. Leader J.K.: Pulmonary nodule detection with low-dose CT of the lung: agreement among radiologists. Amer J Roentgenol 2005; 185: pp. 973-978.
21. Federle M.P., Pan K., Pealer K.M.: CT criteria for differentiating abdominal hemorrhage: anticoagulation or aortic aneurysm rupture?. AJR Amer J Roentgenol 2007; 188: pp. 1324-1330.
22. Boyd A., Hosner C., Hunscher D., et. al.: An ‘honest broker’ mechanism to maintain privacy for patient care and academic medical research. Int J Med Inform 2007; 76: pp. 407-411.
23. Boyd A.D., Saxman P.R., Hunscher D.A., et. al.: The University of Michigan honest broker: a web-based service for clinical and translational research and practice. J Amer Med Inform Assoc 2009; 16: pp. 784-791.
24. Dhir R., Patel A.A., Winters S., et. al.: A multidisciplinary approach to honest broker services for tissue banks and clinical data. Cancer 2008; 113: pp. 1705-1715.
25. BIRN – Biomedical Informatics Research Network | The Conduit for Biomedical Research. Available at: http://www.birncommunity.org/ . Accessed October 28, 2010.
26. caGrid and Infrastructure Overview. Available at: https://cabig.nci.nih.gov/index_html/sharable/cagrid_overview?pid=primary.2006–07–07.4911641845&sid=caGrid&status=True . Accessed October 28, 2010.
27. National Radiology Data Registry (NRDR). Available at: http://www.acr.org/SecondaryMainMenuCategories/quality_safety/NRDR.aspx . Accessed October 28, 2010.
28. Lindsay M.J., Siegel B.A., Tunis S.R., et. al.: The National Oncologic PET Registry: expanded medicare coverage for PET under coverage with evidence development. AJR Amer J Roentgenol 2007; 188: pp. 1109-1113.
29. ROC Analysis. Web-based Calculator for ROC Curves. Available at: http://www.rad.jhmi.edu/jeng/javarad/roc/JROCFITi.html . Accessed October 28, 2010.
30. 3D Slicer. Available at: http://www.slicer.org/ . Accessed October 28, 2010.
31. Elshaug A.G., Bessen T., Moss J.R., et. al.: Addressing “waste” in diagnostic imaging: some implications of comparative effectiveness research. J Amer Coll Radiol 2010; 7: pp. 603-613.
32. Pandharipande P.V., Gazelle G.S.: Comparative effectiveness research: what it means for radiology. Radiology 2009; 253: pp. 600-605.