Use of Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium (CDISC) Standards for Real-world Data: Expert Perspectives From a Qualitative Delphi Survey
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Real-world data (RWD) and real-world evidence (RWE) are playing increasingly important roles in clinical research and health care decision-making. To leverage RWD and generate reliable RWE, data should be well defined and structured in a way that is semantically interoperable and consistent across stakeholders. The adoption of data standards is one of the cornerstones supporting high-quality evidence for the development of clinical medicine and therapeutics. Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium (CDISC) data standards are mature, globally recognized, and heavily used by the pharmaceutical industry for regulatory submissions. The CDISC RWD Connect Initiative aims to better understand the barriers to implementing CDISC standards for RWD and to identify the tools and guidance needed to more easily implement them. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to understand the barriers to implementing CDISC standards for RWD and to identify the tools and guidance that may be needed to implement CDISC standards more easily for this purpose. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative Delphi survey involving an expert advisory board with multiple key stakeholders, with 3 rounds of input and review. RESULTS: Overall, 66 experts participated in round 1, 56 in round 2, and 49 in round 3 of the Delphi survey. Their inputs were collected and analyzed, culminating in group statements. It was widely agreed that the standardization of RWD is highly necessary, and the primary focus should be on its ability to improve data sharing and the quality of RWE. The priorities for RWD standardization included electronic health records, such as data shared using Health Level 7 Fast Health care Interoperability Resources (FHIR), and the data stemming from observational studies. With different standardization efforts already underway in these areas, a gap analysis should be performed to identify the areas where synergies and efficiencies are possible and then collaborate with stakeholders to create or extend existing mappings between CDISC and other standards, controlled terminologies, and models to represent data originating across different sources. CONCLUSIONS: There are many ongoing data standardization efforts around human health data-related activities, each with different definitions, levels of granularity, and purpose. Among these, CDISC has been successful in standardizing clinical trial-based data for regulation worldwide. However, the complexity of the CDISC standards and the fact that they were developed for different purposes, combined with the lack of awareness and incentives to use a new standard and insufficient training and implementation support, are significant barriers to setting up the use of CDISC standards for RWD. The collection and dissemination of use cases, development of tools and support systems for the RWD community, and collaboration with other standards development organizations are potential steps forward. Using CDISC will help link clinical trial data and RWD and promote innovation in health data science.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,053 | 0,400 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».