Author:
Schulz Stefan,Stegwee Robert,Chronaki Catherine
Abstract
AbstractClinical data interoperability requires shared specifications of meaning. This is the rationale for clinical data standards. Up until now, the adoption of such standards has been varied, although they are increasingly advocated in an area where proprietary specifications prevail, and semantic resources are geared to specific purposes and limited by boundaries of languages and jurisdictions. This chapter highlights the need of data standards in the context of the difficult and heterogeneous field of clinical data and the way how they are addressed by terminologies, ontologies and information models. It provides an overview of existing standards and discusses quality and implementation issues. Emphasis is also put on the eStandards methodology, which investigates needs for health data standards, supports the creation of standardised artefacts and defines actions for the implementation of standards.
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Reference38 articles.
1. Stamper R. Signs, information, norms and systems. Signs of Work. 1996:349–99.
2. Hersh WR, et al. Caveats for the use of operational electronic health record data in comparative effectiveness research. Med Care. 2013;51(8 Suppl 3):S30–7.
3. Gonzalez-Hernandez G, Sarker A, O’Connor K, Savova G. Capturing the patient’s perspective: a review of advances in natural language processing of health-related text. Yearb Med Inform. 2017;26(1):214–27.
4. Wilkinson MD, et al. The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data. 2016;3:160018.
5. Kalra D, Schulz S, Karlsson D, Vander Stichele R, Cornet R, Rosenbeck Gøeg K, Cangioli G, Chronaki C, Thiel R, Thun S, Stroetmann V. Assessing SNOMED CT for large scale eHealth deployments in the EU. 2016. http://assess-ct.eu/fileadmin/assess_ct/final_brochure/assessct_final_brochure.pdf
Cited by
52 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献