A practical framework for data management processes and their evaluation in population-based medical registries

References

• Seddon DJ, Williams EMI. Data quality in population-based cancer registration: an assessment of the Merseyside and Cheshire Cancer Registry. British Journal of Cancer 1997; 76(5):667–674.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solomon DJ, Henry RC, Hogan JG, Vanamburg GH, Taylor J. Evaluation and implementation of public-health registries. Public Health Reports 1991; 106(2):142–150.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muller D, Augustin M, Banik N, Baumann W, Bestehorn K, Kieschke J, Lefering R Memorandum registry for health services research. Gesundheitswesen 2010; 72(11):824–839.
   Google Scholar
• Quantin C, Jaquet-Chiffelle DO, Coatrieux G, Benzenine E, Auverlot B, Allaert FA. Medical record: systematic centralization versus secure on demand aggregation. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 2011; 22:11.
   Google Scholar
• Prakash N, Gosain A. An approach to engineering the requirements of data warehouses. Requirements Engineering 2008; 13(1):49–72.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlaps D, Schmid T. Data warehousing in clinical research and development – from clinical data to knowledge portals. Pharmazeutische Industrie 2004; 66(5A):637–646.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider M. A general model for the design of data warehouses. International Journal of Production Economics 2008; 112(1):309–325.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daily CM, Dalton DR, Cannella AA. Introduction to special topic forum corporate governance: decades of dialogue and data. Academy of Management Review 2003; 28(3):371–382.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khatri V, Brown CV. Designing data governance. Communications of the ACM 2010; 53(1):148–152.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Otto B. Data governance. Business & Information Systems Engineering 2011; 3(4):241–244.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laning LJ. Corporate data architecture – the key to supporting management. Data Base 1983; 14(4):14–15.
   Google Scholar
• Mistelbauer H. Concentration of data models – from project data models to an enterprise-wide data architecture. Wirtschaftsinformatik 1991; 33(4):289–299.
   Google Scholar
• van den Hoven J. Data architecture standards for the effective enterprise. Information Systems Management 2004; 21(3):61–64.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van den Hoven J. Data architecture: blueprints for data. Information Systems Management 2003; 20(1):90–92.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van den Hoven J. Data architecture: principles for data. Information Systems Management 2003; 20(3):93–96.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang R. Data quality. Sloan Management Review 1995; 36(3):11.
   Google Scholar
• Wang RY, Storey VC, Firth CP. A framework for analysis of data quality research. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 1995; 7(4):623–640.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang RY, Reddy MP, Kon HB. Toward quality data – an attribute-based approach. Decision Support Systems 1995; 13(3–4):349–372.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang RY. A product perspective on total data quality management. Communications of the ACM 1998; 41(2):58–65.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Otto B, Lee YW, Caballero I. Information and data quality in business networking: a key concept for enterprises in its early stages of development. Electronic Markets 2011; 21(2):83–97.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Registries for evaluating patient outcomes: a user's guide. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Jensen OM, Parkin DM, MacLennan R, Muir CS, Skeet RG. Cancer registration: principles and methods. Lyon: IARC Scientific Publications No. 95; 1991.
   Google Scholar
• Bray F, Parkin DM. Evaluation of data quality in the cancer registry: principles and methods. Part I: Comparability, validity and timeliness. European Journal of Cancer 2009; 45(5):747–755.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arts DGT, de Keizer NF, Scheffer GJ. Defining and improving data quality in medical registries: a literature review, case study, and generic framework. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association 2002; 9(6):600–611.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parkin DM, Bray F. Evaluation of data quality in the cancer registry: principles and methods. Part II. Completeness. European Journal of Cancer 2009; 45(5):756–764.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Armenti KR, Celaya MO, Cherala S, Riddle B, Schumacher PK, Rees JR. Improving the quality of industry and occupation data at a central cancer registry. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 2010; 53(10):995–1001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arts D, de Keizer N, Scheffer GJ, de Jonge E. Quality of data collected for severity of illness scores in the Dutch National Intensive Care Evaluation (NICE) registry. Intensive Care Medicine 2002; 28(5):656–659.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leiner F, Gaus W, Haux R. Medical data management – a practical guide. Berlin: Springer; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Keuth H. Realism and truth – on Albert, Hans Defense of Critical Realism. Zeitschrift fur Philosophische Forschung 1982; 36(3):409–417.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Madden JD. Realism, nominalism, and biological naturalism. International Philosophical Quarterly 2011; 51(1):85–102.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson L, Tomlinson CM. A critical-review of the fundamentals of knowledge engineering. Systems Research and Information Science 1994; 6(4):187–218.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kramer H. Introduction to Knowledge and Scientific Theory – German – Leinfellner, W. Synthese 1967; 17(1):109–111.
   Google Scholar
• Hegde S. Constructivism in social science methodology – a reconsideration. Indian Journal of Social Work 2006; 67(1–2):32–44.
   Google Scholar
• Luhmann N. Die Wissenschaft der Gesellschaft (6th edn). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag; 1992.
   Google Scholar
• Gassman JJ, Owen WW, Kuntz TE, Martin JP, Amoroso WP. Data quality assurance, monitoring, and reporting. Controlled Clinical Trials 1995; 16(2):104–136.
   Google Scholar
• Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O'Brien B, Stoddart GL. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes (3rd edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Brewster D. Improving the quality of cancer registration data. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 1995; 88(5):268–271.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nonnenmacher N, Weiland D, Stausberg J. Datenqualität in der medizinischen Forschung. Berlin: Medizinisch Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Larsen IK, Smastuen M, Johannesen TB, Langmark F, Parkin DM, Bray F, Moller B Data quality at the Cancer Registry of Norway: an overview of comparability, completeness, validity and timeliness. European Journal of Cancer 2009; 45(7):1218–1231.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webster AC, Supramaniam R, O'Connell DL, Chapman JR, Craig JC. Validity of registry data: agreement between cancer records in an end-stage kidney disease registry (voluntary reporting) and a cancer register (statutory reporting). Nephrology 2010; 15(4):491–501.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Willis CD, Jolley DJ, Mcneil JJ, Cameron PA, Phillips LE. Identifying and improving unreliable items in registries through data auditing. International Journal for Quality in Health Care 2011; 23(3):317–323.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schouten LJ, Straatman H, Kiemeney LALM, Gimbrere CHF, Verbeek ALM. The capture–recapture method for estimation of cancer registry completeness – a useful tool. International Journal of Epidemiology 1994; 23(6):1111–1116.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ballivet S, Salmi LR, Dubourdieu D. Capture–recapture method to determine the best design of a surveillance system. Application to a thyroid cancer registry. European Journal of Epidemiology 2000; 16(2):147–153.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brenner H, Stegmaier C, Ziegler H. Estimating completeness of cancer registration – an empirical-evaluation of the two source capture–recapture approach in Germany. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 1995; 49(4):426–430.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brenner H. Application of capture–recapture methods for disease monitoring – potential effects of imperfect record linkage. Methods of Information in Medicine 1994; 33(5):502–506.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Contiero P, Tittarelli A, Maghini A, Fabiano S, Frassoldi E, Costa E, Gada D Comparison with manual registration reveals satisfactory completeness and efficiency of a computerized cancer registration system. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 2008; 41(1):24–32.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crocetti E, Miccinesi G, Paci E, Zappa M. An application of the two-source capture–recapture method to estimate the completeness of the Tuscany Cancer Registry, Italy. European Journal of Cancer Prevention 2001; 10(5):417–423.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mears GD, Rosamond WD, Lohmeier C, Murphy C, O'Brien E, Asimos AW, Brice JH A link to improve stroke patient care: a successful linkage between a statewide emergency medical services data system and a stroke registry. Academic Emergency Medicine 2010; 17(12):1398–1404.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herzog TN, Scheuren FJ, Winkler WE. Data quality and record linkage techniques. New York, NY: Springer; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Noren GN, Orre R, Bate A, Edwards IR. Duplicate detection in adverse drug reaction surveillance. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 2007; 14(3):305–328.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schouten LJ, de Rijke JM, Schlangen JT, Verbeek ALM. Evaluation of the effect of breast cancer screening by record linkage with the cancer registry, the Netherlands. Journal of Medical Screening 1998; 5(1):37–41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stang A, Schmidt-Pokrzywniak A, Lehnert M, Parkin DM, Ferlay J, Bornfeld N, Marr A Population-based incidence estimates of uveal melanoma in Germany. Supplementing cancer registry data by case-control data. European Journal of Cancer Prevention 2006; 15(2):165–170.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stang A, Glynn RJ, Gann PH, Taylor JO, Hennekens CH. Cancer occurrence in the elderly: agreement between three major data sources. Annals of Epidemiology 1999; 9(1):60–67.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stoove MA, Dietze PM, Jolley D. Overdose deaths following previous non-fatal heroin overdose: record linkage of ambulance attendance and death registry data. Drug and Alcohol Review 2009; 28(4):347–352.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christen P, Goiser K. Quality and complexity measures for data linkage and deduplication. In: Guillet F, Hamilton H, editors. Quality Measures in Data Mining (43rd edn). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer; 2007, pp. 127–151.
   Google Scholar
• El Emam K, Dankar FK. Protecting privacy using k-anonymity. Journal of American Medical Informatics Association 2008; 15(5):627–637.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gardner J, Xiong L. An integrated framework for de-identifying unstructured medical data. Data & Knowledge Engineering 2009; 68(12):1441–1451.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang XC, Liu XY, Wang B, Yu G. A k-anonymizing approach for preventing link attacks in data publishing. Parallel and Distributed Processing and Applications – ISPA 2005 Workshops 2005; 3759:627–636.
   Google Scholar
• Neubauer T, Heurix J. A methodology for the pseudonymization of medical data. International Journal of Medical Informatics 2011; 80(3):190–204.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noumeir R, Lemay A, Lina JM. Pseudonymization of radiology data for research purposes. Journal of Digit Imaging 2007; 20(3):284–295.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reng CM, Debold P, Specker C, Pommerening K. Generische Lösungen zum Datenschutz für die Forschungsnetze in der Medizin. Berlin: Medizinisch Wissenschaftliche Verlagsanstalt; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• PID-Generator [computer program]. Version 1.2.0.1 2011.
   Google Scholar
• ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline – Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R1). 2011. International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. Ref. Type: Generic.
   Google Scholar
• Betister G, Furbach U, Gross-Hardt M, Thomas B. Automatic classification for the identification of relationships in a meta-data repository. Discovery Science Proceedings 2003; 2843:283–290.
   Google Scholar
• Slavic A. Building and managing the meta data repository: a full lifecycle guide. Program-Electronic Library and Information Systems 2001; 35(3):320–322.
   Google Scholar
• Brossman MW, Mckenna GF. Total quality management and the development of data quality objectives. Abstracts of Papers of the American Chemical Society 1991; 201:p2-ACSC.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green RS, Newman FL. Total quality management principles promote increased utilization of client outcome data in behavioral health care. Evaluation and Program Planning 1999; 22(2):179–182.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Technische Richtlinien. 8-8-2011. Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik. Ref Type: Generic.
   Google Scholar
• Bowen P, Hash J, Wilson M. Information Security Handbook: A Guide for Managers. National Institute of Standards and Technology. Report No.: Special Publication 800-100; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Krieg V. Pseudonymisierung und Record Linkage im Epidemiologischen Krebsregister Nordrhein-Westfalen. 15-12-2008. Ref. Type: Slide.
   Google Scholar
• Parkin DM, Chen VW, Ferlay J, Galceran J, Storm HH, Whelan SL. Comparability and quality control in cancer registration. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC); 1994. Report No.: 19.
   Google Scholar