2013
DOI: 10.1017/s0317167100017212
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Common Data Elements for Neurological Registries

Abstract: At the outset of this project, one aim was to define a set of core data fields to include in all neurological registries in Canada. This project targeted neurological registries in Canada for all priority neurological conditions identified in the call for proposal including: Alzheimer's disease (AD) and other dementias, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), brain tumours, cerebral palsy (CP), dystonia, epilepsy, Huntington's disease (HD), hydrocephalus, multiple sclerosis (MS), muscular dystrophy (MD), Parkinso… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
3
1

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Completed DCDE lists were planned to be sent to medical experts for review using a structured feedback method, allowing them to rate an arranged set of statements designed to indicate the relevance of each DCDE within a certain domain group. To ease the adoption of identified DCDEs by all RD registries, it was initially recommended that the rating statements address the following aspects: (1) importance of each DCDE for the integrity of a registry within a certain domain group, (2) reliability of data collection in each DCDE, (3) necessity of a DCDE for the analysis of the primary outcome of the registry, and (4) the time and cost required to collect each DCDE [ 14 ]. Other categories that might arise in discussions during or after the conference were also to be incorporated.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Completed DCDE lists were planned to be sent to medical experts for review using a structured feedback method, allowing them to rate an arranged set of statements designed to indicate the relevance of each DCDE within a certain domain group. To ease the adoption of identified DCDEs by all RD registries, it was initially recommended that the rating statements address the following aspects: (1) importance of each DCDE for the integrity of a registry within a certain domain group, (2) reliability of data collection in each DCDE, (3) necessity of a DCDE for the analysis of the primary outcome of the registry, and (4) the time and cost required to collect each DCDE [ 14 ]. Other categories that might arise in discussions during or after the conference were also to be incorporated.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, one of the most difficult aspects of sharing data across studies relates to mapping the assessment information into a common framework. Indeed, the development of common data elements for various domains is the focus of much research [ 4 - 6 ]. Secondly, the type of data shared ranges from higher to lower information density from time series data (e.g., an fMRI data set), to contrast or connectivity maps, to coordinates and peaks (e.g., tables in a journal article).…”
Section: Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…COINS provides a multitude of tools to maximize the efficiency and minimize the errors associated with collecting both assessment and neuroimaging data [ 11 , 12 ], and also provides tools to easily enable the sharing of data from within this framework [ 13 ]. Tools such as those in COINS are important not only to collect quality data, but also to encourage adoption of common data elements that enable mapping of assessment and clinical information in addition to imaging information between studies [ 4 - 6 , 14 ] (see Figure 2 ).
Figure 2 Examples of question types included in COINS.
…”
Section: Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%