REDCap on FHIR: Clinical Data Interoperability Services

Cheng, Alex; Duda, Stephany N.; Taylor, Robert J.; Delacqua, Francesco; Lewis, Adam; Bosler, Teresa; Johnson, Kevin B.; Harris, Paul A.

doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2021.103871

Cited by 38 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Of the 49 studies, most (73%, n=36) studies covered the research domain of clinical research, of which 10 (20%) studies were clinical trials [ 22 , 29 - 31 , 36 , 39 , 43 , 56 , 65 , 66 ]; 3 (6%) studies focused on solutions in public health and epidemiology [ 38 , 40 , 64 ], and the remaining studies did not specify their research domain (20%, n=10; Figure 4 ) [ 24 , 32 , 41 , 42 , 45 - 47 , 50 , 63 , 69 ]. The included studies used FHIR for the standardization of data (41%, n=20) [ 23 , 26 , 30 , 34 , 41 , 45 - 48 , 51 - 53 , 57 - 60 , 63 , 66 , 67 , 70 ], data capture (29%, n=14) [ 1 , 12 , 22 , 24 , 27 , 35 - 37 , 43 , 44 , 55 , 61 , 64 , 65 ], recruitment (14%, n=7) [ 28 , 29 , 31 , 32 , 49 , 56 , 62 ], analysis (12%, n=6) [ 25 , 38 , 42 , 50 , 68 , ...…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of the 49 studies, the majority were conducted in Germany (47%, n=23) [12,26,[28][29][30][31]34,35,[40][41][42][45][46][47]52,53,[56][57][58]60,62,63,69], the United States (27%, n=13) [22,25,36,44,[48][49][50]61,[64][65][66]68,70], and Australia (6%, n=3) [1,43,67]. The remaining studies were performed in Austria (2%, n=1) [32], Canada (2%, n=1) [24], France (2%, n=1) [51], Greece (2%, n=1) [59], Japan (2%, n=1) [27], Pakistan (2%, n=1) [38], Spain (2%, n=1) [55], Switzerland (2%, n=1) [39], Taiwan (2%, n=1) [23], and the United Kingdom (2%, n=1)…”

Section: Characteristics Of Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In terms of medical specialty, most (55%, 27/49) of the studies [24,[27][28][29][30][31][32]34,[36][37][38][39][40][41][42]44,46,48,49,53,56,[60][61][62][63]67,70] were using a generic approach-implementable in any kind of specialty (Table 2). Of the remaining studies, 16% (8/49) use cases focused on infectious disease [1,22,23,26,45,47,50,59], whereas 12% (6/49) focused on oncology [25,55,57,58,65,66] and 8% (4/49) on genomics [43,52,68,69].…”

Section: Study Objectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Vorisek¹,

Lehne²,

Klopfenstein³

et al. 2022

JMIR Med Inform

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Characteristics Of Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Objectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Vorisek¹,

Lehne²,

Klopfenstein³

et al. 2022

JMIR Med Inform

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, it serves as a reference database for comparing traditional CRF data entry and automated CRF extraction using REDCap's Clinical Data Interoperability Services module (CDIS). CDIS gives REDCap the ability to extract data from EHR Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) that comply with the HL7 Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) standard [15].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating automated electronic case report form data entry from electronic health records

Cheng

Banasiewicz

Johnson

et al. 2022

J. Clin. Trans. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Study data were collected and managed using REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) [ 21 , 22 ] electronic data capture tools. Data were then exported into MedCalc, Statistical Software, version 19.6 (MedCalc Software LTD, Ostrend, Belgium; http://www.medcalc.org ; 2020) for further statistical analysis.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intubation during spinal motion restriction using the LuboTM cervical collar - a manikin simulation study

Behari

Jaga

Bergh

et al. 2022

African Journal of Emergency Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

REDCap on FHIR: Clinical Data Interoperability Services

Cited by 38 publications

References 14 publications

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

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

Evaluating automated electronic case report form data entry from electronic health records

Intubation during spinal motion restriction using the LuboTM cervical collar - a manikin simulation study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About