» Articles » PMID: 38216645

Next-generation Study Databases Require FAIR, EHR-integrated, and Scalable Electronic Data Capture for Medical Documentation and Decision Support

Abstract

Structured patient data play a key role in all types of clinical research. They are often collected in study databases for research purposes. In order to describe characteristics of a next-generation study database and assess the feasibility of its implementation a proof-of-concept study in a German university hospital was performed. Key characteristics identified include FAIR access to electronic case report forms (eCRF), regulatory compliant Electronic Data Capture (EDC), an EDC with electronic health record (EHR) integration, scalable EDC for medical documentation, patient generated data, and clinical decision support. In a local case study, we then successfully implemented a next-generation study database for 19 EDC systems (n = 2217 patients) that linked to i.s.h.med (Oracle Cerner) with the local EDC system called OpenEDC. Desiderata of next-generation study databases for patient data were identified from ongoing local clinical study projects in 11 clinical departments at Heidelberg University Hospital, Germany, a major tertiary referral hospital. We compiled and analyzed feature and functionality requests submitted to the OpenEDC team between May 2021 and July 2023. Next-generation study databases are technically and clinically feasible. Further research is needed to evaluate if our approach is feasible in a multi-center setting as well.

Citing Articles

Medical researchers' perception of sharing of metadata from case report forms.

Meidt A, Walter C, Lehmann C, Dugas M Learn Health Syst. 2025; 9(1):e10456.

PMID: 39822926 PMC: 11733469. DOI: 10.1002/lrh2.10456.


Navigating AI: A Quick Start Guide for Healthcare Professionals.

Mathur P, Arshad H, Grasfield R, Khatib R, Aggarwal A, Auron M Cureus. 2024; 16(10):e72501.

PMID: 39600775 PMC: 11595564. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.72501.

References
1.
Garza M, Myneni S, Nordo A, Eisenstein E, Hammond W, Walden A . eSource for Standardized Health Information Exchange in Clinical Research: A Systematic Review. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2019; 257:115-124. View

2.
Eichler H, Pignatti F, Schwarzer-Daum B, Hidalgo-Simon A, Eichler I, Arlett P . Randomized Controlled Trials Versus Real World Evidence: Neither Magic Nor Myth. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2020; 109(5):1212-1218. PMC: 8246742. DOI: 10.1002/cpt.2083. View

3.
Mailman M, Feolo M, Jin Y, Kimura M, Tryka K, Bagoutdinov R . The NCBI dbGaP database of genotypes and phenotypes. Nat Genet. 2007; 39(10):1181-6. PMC: 2031016. DOI: 10.1038/ng1007-1181. View

4.
Pronker E, Geerts B, Cohen A, Pieterse H . Improving the quality of drug research or simply increasing its cost? An evidence-based study of the cost for data monitoring in clinical trials. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2011; 71(3):467-70. PMC: 3045557. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2010.03839.x. View

5.
Zarin D, Tse T, Williams R, Califf R, Ide N . The ClinicalTrials.gov results database--update and key issues. N Engl J Med. 2011; 364(9):852-60. PMC: 3066456. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsa1012065. View