62
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Maelstrom Research guidelines for rigorous retrospective data harmonization

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background: It is widely accepted and acknowledged that data harmonization is crucial: in its absence, the co-analysis of major tranches of high quality extant data is liable to inefficiency or error. However, despite its widespread practice, no formalized/systematic guidelines exist to ensure high quality retrospective data harmonization.

          Methods: To better understand real-world harmonization practices and facilitate development of formal guidelines, three interrelated initiatives were undertaken between 2006 and 2015. They included a phone survey with 34 major international research initiatives, a series of workshops with experts, and case studies applying the proposed guidelines.

          Results: A wide range of projects use retrospective harmonization to support their research activities but even when appropriate approaches are used, the terminologies, procedures, technologies and methods adopted vary markedly. The generic guidelines outlined in this article delineate the essentials required and describe an interdependent step-by-step approach to harmonization: 0) define the research question, objectives and protocol; 1) assemble pre-existing knowledge and select studies; 2) define targeted variables and evaluate harmonization potential; 3) process data; 4) estimate quality of the harmonized dataset(s) generated; and 5) disseminate and preserve final harmonization products.

          Conclusions: This manuscript provides guidelines aiming to encourage rigorous and effective approaches to harmonization which are comprehensively and transparently documented and straightforward to interpret and implement. This can be seen as a key step towards implementing guiding principles analogous to those that are well recognised as being essential in securing the foundational underpinning of systematic reviews and the meta-analysis of clinical trials.

          Related collections

          Most cited references40

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          DataSHIELD: taking the analysis to the data, not the data to the analysis

          Background: Research in modern biomedicine and social science requires sample sizes so large that they can often only be achieved through a pooled co-analysis of data from several studies. But the pooling of information from individuals in a central database that may be queried by researchers raises important ethico-legal questions and can be controversial. In the UK this has been highlighted by recent debate and controversy relating to the UK’s proposed ‘care.data’ initiative, and these issues reflect important societal and professional concerns about privacy, confidentiality and intellectual property. DataSHIELD provides a novel technological solution that can circumvent some of the most basic challenges in facilitating the access of researchers and other healthcare professionals to individual-level data. Methods: Commands are sent from a central analysis computer (AC) to several data computers (DCs) storing the data to be co-analysed. The data sets are analysed simultaneously but in parallel. The separate parallelized analyses are linked by non-disclosive summary statistics and commands transmitted back and forth between the DCs and the AC. This paper describes the technical implementation of DataSHIELD using a modified R statistical environment linked to an Opal database deployed behind the computer firewall of each DC. Analysis is controlled through a standard R environment at the AC. Results: Based on this Opal/R implementation, DataSHIELD is currently used by the Healthy Obese Project and the Environmental Core Project (BioSHaRE-EU) for the federated analysis of 10 data sets across eight European countries, and this illustrates the opportunities and challenges presented by the DataSHIELD approach. Conclusions: DataSHIELD facilitates important research in settings where: (i) a co-analysis of individual-level data from several studies is scientifically necessary but governance restrictions prohibit the release or sharing of some of the required data, and/or render data access unacceptably slow; (ii) a research group (e.g. in a developing nation) is particularly vulnerable to loss of intellectual property—the researchers want to fully share the information held in their data with national and international collaborators, but do not wish to hand over the physical data themselves; and (iii) a data set is to be included in an individual-level co-analysis but the physical size of the data precludes direct transfer to a new site for analysis.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Methods for pooling results of epidemiologic studies: the Pooling Project of Prospective Studies of Diet and Cancer.

            With the growing number of epidemiologic publications on the relation between dietary factors and cancer risk, pooled analyses that summarize results from multiple studies are becoming more common. Here, the authors describe the methods being used to summarize data on diet-cancer associations within the ongoing Pooling Project of Prospective Studies of Diet and Cancer, begun in 1991. In the Pooling Project, the primary data from prospective cohort studies meeting prespecified inclusion criteria are analyzed using standardized criteria for modeling of exposure, confounding, and outcome variables. In addition to evaluating main exposure-disease associations, analyses are also conducted to evaluate whether exposure-disease associations are modified by other dietary and nondietary factors or vary among population subgroups or particular cancer subtypes. Study-specific relative risks are calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model and then pooled using a random- or mixed-effects model. The study-specific estimates are weighted by the inverse of their variances in forming summary estimates. Most of the methods used in the Pooling Project may be adapted for examining associations with dietary and nondietary factors in pooled analyses of case-control studies or case-control and cohort studies combined.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Age and Gender Differences in Physical Capability Levels from Mid-Life Onwards: The Harmonisation and Meta-Analysis of Data from Eight UK Cohort Studies

              Using data from eight UK cohorts participating in the Healthy Ageing across the Life Course (HALCyon) research programme, with ages at physical capability assessment ranging from 50 to 90+ years, we harmonised data on objective measures of physical capability (i.e. grip strength, chair rising ability, walking speed, timed get up and go, and standing balance performance) and investigated the cross-sectional age and gender differences in these measures. Levels of physical capability were generally lower in study participants of older ages, and men performed better than women (for example, results from meta-analyses (N = 14,213 (5 studies)), found that men had 12.62 kg (11.34, 13.90) higher grip strength than women after adjustment for age and body size), although for walking speed, this gender difference was attenuated after adjustment for body size. There was also evidence that the gender difference in grip strength diminished with increasing age,whereas the gender difference in walking speed widened (p<0.01 for interactions between age and gender in both cases). This study highlights not only the presence of age and gender differences in objective measures of physical capability but provides a demonstration that harmonisation of data from several large cohort studies is possible. These harmonised data are now being used within HALCyon to understand the lifetime social and biological determinants of physical capability and its changes with age.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Int J Epidemiol
                Int J Epidemiol
                ije
                International Journal of Epidemiology
                Oxford University Press
                0300-5771
                1464-3685
                February 2017
                05 June 2016
                05 June 2016
                : 46
                : 1
                : 103-105
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada
                [2 ]McMaster University, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Hamilton, ON, Canada
                [3 ]Eindhoven University of Technology, Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
                [4 ]University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Epidemiology, Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
                [5 ]McGill University, Centre of Genomics and Policy, Montreal, Montrreal, QC, Canada
                [6 ]Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, MaRS Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
                [7 ]University of Michigan, Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR), Ann Arbor, MI, USA
                [8 ]University of Bristol, D2K Research Group, School of Social and Community Medicine, Bristol, UK
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author. Research Institute of McGill University Health Centre, 2155 Guy Street, office 460, Montreal, QC, Canada. E-mail: ifortier@ 123456maelstrom-research.org
                Article
                dyw075
                10.1093/ije/dyw075
                5407152
                27272186
                761a5326-c017-42e0-878c-d98117abfd18
                © The Author 2016; Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Epidemiological Association

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 16 March 2016
                Page count
                Pages: 13
                Funding
                Funded by: Quebec ‘Ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur, de la Recherche, de la Science et de la Technologie’; the Canadian Partnership against Cancer, the European Union’s Seventh Framework HEALTH-F4-2010
                Award ID: 261433
                Categories
                Methodology

                Public health
                data harmonization,data integration,data processing,individual participant data,retrospective harmonization,meta-analysis

                Comments

                Comment on this article