PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
August 1, 2024Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety5 citationsOpen Access

Metadata for Data dIscoverability aNd Study rEplicability in obseRVAtional Studies (MINERVA): Development and Pilot of a Metadata List and Catalogue in Europe

View Full Paper
RPRomin PajouheshniaUtrecht UniversityRGRosa GiniAgenzia Regionale per la Protezione Ambientale del PiemonteLGLia GutiérrezRisk Management Solutions (United Kingdom)

Key Points

Key points are not available for this paper at this time.

Abstract

Purpose: Metadata for data dIscoverability aNd study rEplicability in obseRVAtional studies (MINERVA), a European Medicines Agency–funded project (EUPAS39322), defined a set of metadata to describe real-world data sources (RWDSs) and piloted metadata collection in a prototype catalogue to assist investigators from data source discoverability through study conduct. Methods: A list of metadata was created from a review of existing metadata catalogues and recommendations, structured interviews, a stakeholder survey, and a technical workshop. The prototype was designed to comply with the FAIR principles (findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable), using MOLGENIS software. Metadata collection was piloted by 15 data access partners (DAPs) from across Europe. Results: A total of 442 metadata variables were defined in six domains: institutions (organizations connected to a data source); data banks (data collections sustained by an organization); data sources (collections of linkable data banks covering a common underlying population); studies; networks (of institutions); and common data models (CDMs). A total of 26 institutions were recorded in the prototype. Each DAP populated the metadata of one data source and its selected data banks. The number of data banks varied by data source; the most common data banks were hospital administrative records and pharmacy dispensation records (10 data sources each). Quantitative metadata were successfully extracted from three data sources conforming to different CDMs and entered into the prototype. Conclusions: A metadata list was finalized, a prototype was successfully populated, and a good practice guide was developed. Setting up and maintaining a metadata catalogue on RWDSs will require substantial effort to support discoverability of data sources and reproducibility of studies in Europe.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Pajouheshnia et al. (2024) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68e5dc57b6db643587572001https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.5871
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Common Metadata Framework for Research Data Repository: Necessity to Support Open Science2024 · 7 citations
  2. 2Publishing Fine-Grained Standardized Metadata: Lessons Learned from Three Research Data Centers2026
  3. 3FAIR assessment of MINERVA as an opportunity to foster open science and scientific crowdsourcing in systems biomedicine2024 · 2 citations
  4. 4Presentations: Presenting Metadata Differently2026
  5. 5Identifying metadata commonalities across restricted health data sources: A mixed methods study exploring how to improve the discovery of and access to restricted datasets2024 · 1 citations