The DOI matches its Crossref record; 57 of the 63 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 12 of the 20 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software platform partners
Open accessAbstract
The Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) data management platform was developed in 2004 to address an institutional need at Vanderbilt University, then shared with a limited number of adopting sites beginning in 2006. Given bi-directional benefit in early sharing experiments, we created a broader consortium sharing and support model for any academic, non-profit, or government partner wishing to adopt the software. Our sharing framework and consortium-based support model have evolved over time along with the size of the consortium (currently more than 3,200 REDCap partners across 128 countries). While the “REDCap Consortium” model represents only one example of how to build and disseminate a software platform, lessons learned from our approach may assist other research institutions seeking to build and disseminate innovative technologies.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This paper describes how REDCap grew from a Vanderbilt-built data capture tool into an international consortium through phased sharing and support. It reports that by mid-December 2018 the consortium had more than 3,200 partners in 128 countries and argues that the staged model offers transferable lessons for disseminating research software.
Key findings
- The consortium expanded from a single site in 2004–2005 to more than 3,207 partners across 128 countries by mid-December 2018; in 2018 alone it added 575 partners, with roughly 2.75 international requests for each U.S. request and more than 20% of partners in World Bank low- and middle-income countries.
- Growth followed six phases: local development, three collaborating sites, 4–10 partners, about 50 national sites, about 500 sites, and then more than 500 sites globally, with changes in licensing, communication, support staffing, and feature priorities at each stage.
- REDCap was cited in more than 6,000 journal articles between 2004 and 2018; early return-on-investment tracking at Vanderbilt in 2008–2009 cited REDCap’s value in securing 23 funded or awarded projects.
- Lessons include starting with local needs, maintaining compatibility with existing projects, setting modest expectations and delivering more than promised, using simple communication tools, managing growth deliberately, and enabling flexible modules, APIs, and plug-ins.
Methods
- Descriptive experience report tracing REDCap and the REDCap Consortium from 2004 through 2018, organized into six chronological phases.
- Evidence includes consortium membership counts, partner distribution, publication citation counts, local return-on-investment examples, and narrative accounts of governance, licensing, support calls, conferences, and software features.
- No formal hypothesis testing or controlled comparison; the analysis is a retrospective narrative synthesis of program metrics and lessons learned.
Limitations
- Stated: the authors note that the REDCap Consortium is only one dissemination model and may not suit all groups; REDCap is not open source, eligibility is limited to non-profit or government institutions, the license restricts code sharing and reseller services, and Vanderbilt retains control over the development trajectory and funding-driven priorities.
- Stated: growth reduced Vanderbilt’s ability to maintain close ties with every new partner; support is limited to partner informatics teams rather than end users, and many non-technical vendor requests were denied.
- Evident: the metrics are program-reported and descriptive, with no independent or controlled evaluation; citation counts and return-on-investment examples are not adjusted for confounding, and the paper does not report systematic user outcomes or comparative performance against other platforms.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
43 No basis given · 22 Own interpretation · 6 Partly supported · 3 Own result · 2 Sources not found · 2 No full text of the sources · 1 Supported so far · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) data management platform is an example of a CTSA-funded clinical research software application that has grown beyond its single institutional use case to be shared with institutions across the world [26].”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Introduction
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [26] Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG, Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support, J. Biomed. Inform 42 (2009) 377– 381. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010. 18929686 PMC2700030 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction says REDCap was initially developed at Vanderbilt, and Results IV.B reports that it was shared through a consortium of 26 domestic and one international partner. Results IV.A links REDCap to a CTSA organization, but the passages do not establish that CTSA funded the software. The reported international reach is also narrower than “institutions across the world” may suggest. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“there remain significant barriers to sharing clinical research software applications [19]”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Introduction
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [19] Reis SE, Berglund L, Bernard GR, Califf RM, Fitzgerald GA, Johnson PC, Reengineering the national clinical and translational research enterprise: the strategic plan of the National Clinical and Translational Science Awards Consortium, Acad. Med. J. Assoc. Am. Med. Coll 85 (2010) 463– 469. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181ccc877. PMC2829722 20182119 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract (page not provided) describes barriers to collaboration in translational research, and Strategic Goal 3 proposes data-sharing mechanisms across the consortium. Neither passage identifies significant barriers to sharing clinical research software applications specifically. (LLM, conf=0.70)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“limited personnel and resources are stretched to support research needs, forcing sites to restrict programs and services and limit innovation [6–9].”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [6] May L, Zatorski C, Vora D, The Role of Technology in Translational Science, World Med. Health Policy 5 (2013) 389– 394. doi: 10.1002/wmh3.69. source
- Partly supportedcites [7] Fahy BG, Balke CW, Umberger GH, Talbert J, Canales DN, Steltenkamp CL, Conigliaro J, Crossing the chasm: information technology to biomedical informatics, J. Investig. Med. Off. Publ. Am. Fed. Clin. Res 59 (2011) 768– 779. doi: 10.231/JIM.0b013e31821452bf. PMC3137749 21383632 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (Barriers; page unavailable) describes funding constraints, unevenly distributed resources, and reliance on IT personnel outside the program to meet research needs. It does not say these pressures forced sites to restrict programs or services or limited innovation; the program described instead obtained funding to expand its capabilities. (LLM, conf=0.83)
- Partly supportedcites [8] Sheetz MP, Can small institutes address some problems facing biomedical researchers?, Mol. Biol. Cell 25 (2014) 3267– 3269. doi: 10.1091/mbc.E14-05-1017. 25360047 PMC4214771 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction describes funding difficulties and increasing regulatory demands, while “Funding of Small Institutes” says flexible funds are critical to innovative research. The paper does not say that limited personnel and resources force sites to restrict programs or services; its account instead focuses on how shared staff and facilities can support research. (LLM, conf=0.82)
- Partly supportedcites [9] Etz RS, Hahn KA, Gonzalez MM, Crabtree BF, Stange KC, Practice-Based Innovations: More Relevant and Transportable Than NIH-funded Studies, J. Am. Board Fam. Med 27 (2014) 738– 739. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2014.06.140053. 25381069 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The paper’s table (page not provided) says research grants often add responsibilities to existing jobs, and its discussion describes practices adapting to funding constraints. It does not say that supporting research forces sites to restrict programs or services, or that personnel demands limit innovation. (LLM, conf=0.81)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Since its initial development at Vanderbilt University, REDCap has been adopted by more than 3,207 partners in 128 countries as of mid-December 2018 (Figures 1 and 2, Table 1).”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we created a broader consortium sharing and support model for any academic, non-profit, or government partner wishing to adopt the software”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“During 2008 and 2009, our earliest phase of formally tracking return on investment for REDCap support at Vanderbilt, our local research teams cited REDCap’s value in securing 23 new funded/awarded projects across numerous biomedical research areas”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Building and Supporting the REDCap Consortium: A Phased Approach > Phase 4: Creating a Broader National Presence (~ 50 sites; ~ 2008–2009)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the platform is used at Vanderbilt and across REDCap Consortium partner institutions for many other use cases (Figure 4), including operational support, quality improvement projects, and even as a sub-component for larger systems and workflow architecture.”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“More than six thousand journal articles have cited use of the software platform in conducting studies during the period between 2004 and 2018 [60].”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [60] Citations – REDCap, (n.d.). https://projectredcap.org/resources/citations/ (accessed December 17, 2018). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Developing formal installation documentation placed a high burden on the Vanderbilt REDCap group, as we had to design a generalizable resource while responding to many customized support requests from adopting institutions.”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Building and Supporting the REDCap Consortium: A Phased Approach > Phase 3: Creating a Small Consortium of Partners (4–10 sites; ~ 2006–2008)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“REDCap was developed in 2004 to provide Vanderbilt University clinical and translational researchers with a straightforward approach to create data management plans while implementing a secure, compliant data management system for their research studies.”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Building and Supporting the REDCap Consortium: A Phased Approach > Phase 1: Developing REDCap at Vanderbilt University (1 site: ~ 2004–2005)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 42
- It may state two separate claims as one. 25
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Clinical research informatics (CRI) is an evolving field widely recognized as crucial for transforming and reengineering the translational research enterprise [1–3].”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Introduction
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [1] Embi PJ, Clinical research informatics: survey of recent advances and trends in a maturing field, Yearb. Med. Inform 8 (2013) 178– 184. 23974569 source
The Introduction describes CRI as an emerging, rapidly expanding field receiving attention across government, academia, and the private sector, and links CRI efforts to reengineering the research enterprise. The Conclusion calls CRI critical to addressing challenges faced by clinical researchers and the research enterprise. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Partly supportedcites [2] Embi PJ, Payne PRO, Advancing methodologies in Clinical Research Informatics (CRI): Foundational work for a maturing field, J. Biomed. Inform 52 (2014) 1– 3. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2014.10.007. 25484113 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The opening passage (page unavailable) describes CRI as an emergent field with growing activity in response to challenges in translational clinical research. Later passages say CRI methods can accelerate research and improve its conduct, but do not establish that CRI is widely recognized as crucial for transforming and reengineering the translational research enterprise. (LLM, conf=0.78)
- Supportedcites [3] Kahn MG, Weng C, Clinical research informatics: a conceptual perspective, J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc 19 (2012) e36– e42. doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2012-000968. 22523344 PMC3392857 source
The Abstract describes CRI as a rapidly evolving field developing tools and solutions to accelerate the full translational continuum. The conceptual-model section describes CRI technologies supporting research workflows across early and later translational phases, consistent with the citing sentence’s broad characterization of its importance. (LLM, conf=0.86)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“REDCap has limited personnel requirements (one support person can easily manage hundreds of projects [48]) but does require typical web infrastructure including one or more secure web servers running PHP, MySQL/MariaDB, and SMTP email services.”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Introduction
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [48] Klipin M, Mare I, Hazelhurst S, Kramer B, The process of installing REDCap, a web based database supporting biomedical research: the first year, Appl. Clin. Inform 5 (2014) 916– 929. doi: 10.4338/ACI-2014-06-CR-0054. 25589907 PMC4287671 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The citation is attached to the personnel claim. The Methods section reports three staff with allocated REDCap time, and §4.2 reports 133 projects; these support modest staffing needs, but not the assertion that one support person can easily manage hundreds of projects. The subsequent infrastructure claim is outside the cited parenthetical. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Alternate software distribution models exist (e.g., i2b2 [61], OpenMRS [62], and Vivo [63])”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Discussion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [61] Natter MD, Quan J, Ortiz DM, Bousvaros A, Ilowite NT, Inman CJ, Marsolo K, McMurry AJ, Sandborg CI, Schanberg LE, Wallace CA, Warren RW, Weber GM, Mandl KD, An i2b2-based, generalizable, open source, self-scaling chronic disease registry, J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. JAMIA 20 (2013) 172– 179. doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001042. 22733975 PMC3555330 source
The Materials and methods section identifies i2b2 as an open-source framework in current use. The citation is attached specifically to i2b2, not to OpenMRS or Vivo, so the source supports it as an example of an alternate software distribution model. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Supportedcites [62] Mohammed-Rajput NA, Smith DC, Mamlin B, Biondich P, Doebbeling BN, OpenMRS A Global Medical Records System Collaborative: Factors Influencing Successful Implementation, AMIA. Annu. Symp. Proc 2011 (2011) 960– 968. 22195155 PMC3243141
The citation is attached to OpenMRS as an example of an alternate software distribution model. The OpenMRS section (page not supplied) identifies it as an open-source electronic health record platform that is freely available. (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [63] Borner K, Ding Y, Conlon M, Corson-Rikert J, VIVO: A Semantic Approach to Scholarly Networking and Discovery, Morgan & Claypool Publishers, 2012. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“REDCap is a secure web application for building and managing online surveys and databases, designed to support data capture for research studies [26].”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Introduction
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [26] Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG, Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support, J. Biomed. Inform 42 (2009) 377– 381. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010. 18929686 PMC2700030 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Methods sections on study creation and the user interface describe REDCap as a secure, web-based application for creating study databases and collecting research data through electronic forms. The passages do not establish that it builds or manages online surveys specifically. (LLM, conf=0.85)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) data management platform was developed in 2004 to address an institutional need at Vanderbilt University”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“then shared with a limited number of adopting sites beginning in 2006”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our sharing framework and consortium-based support model have evolved over time along with the size of the consortium”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“currently more than 3,200 REDCap partners across 128 countries”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Vanderbilt team also maintains control of the REDCap software development trajectory, although we frequently seek input on features and prioritization from the Consortium.”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Discussion > Evolving the Platform
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Vanderbilt’s IRB system uses REDCap as a central component for protocol submissions”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the Vanderbilt REDCap team has expanded its staffing to five full-time developers and two dedicated community support people, with the addition of other associated faculty and custom add-on developers from the Data Core.”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Building and Supporting the REDCap Consortium: A Phased Approach > Phase 6: Expanding Globally (> 500 sites; ~ 2013–2018)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“a “zero-fee” REDCap Consortium membership meant we could only provide support to our partners’ informatics teams, not their end users.”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Building and Supporting the REDCap Consortium: A Phased Approach > Phase 3: Creating a Small Consortium of Partners (4–10 sites; ~ 2006–2008)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By mid-2006, the three-site REDCap collaborative established in Phase 2 had proven so productive that we decided to establish a true consortium by expanding to ten sites.”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Building and Supporting the REDCap Consortium: A Phased Approach > Phase 3: Creating a Small Consortium of Partners (4–10 sites; ~ 2006–2008)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By the end of 2012, we were supporting more than 500 Consortium partners.”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Building and Supporting the REDCap Consortium: A Phased Approach > Phase 5: Building a Diverse Community (~ 500 sites; ~ 2009–2012)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Interest in REDCap spiked once approximately 50 partners had joined the Consortium and membership trended upwards in 2009.”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Building and Supporting the REDCap Consortium: A Phased Approach > Phase 5: Building a Diverse Community (~ 500 sites; ~ 2009–2012)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additional partners meant more time spent managing groups and less time working on needs specific to Vanderbilt research teams.”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Building and Supporting the REDCap Consortium: A Phased Approach > Phase 3: Creating a Small Consortium of Partners (4–10 sites; ~ 2006–2008)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Funding support for REDCap has become increasingly diverse, including support from institutional sources, the CTSA, the Vanderbilt Data Core model, and other NIH-funded grants.”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Building and Supporting the REDCap Consortium: A Phased Approach > Phase 6: Expanding Globally (> 500 sites; ~ 2013–2018)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consortium members continue to provide cross-institutional support for one another through sharing resources (e.g., end-user local training material repository), participating in formal presentations (e.g., monthly REDCapU sessions design to support REDCap domain knowledge and career growth of local informatics champions), and contribution to Consortium Committees.”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Building and Supporting the REDCap Consortium: A Phased Approach > Phase 6: Expanding Globally (> 500 sites; ~ 2013–2018)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Minor revisions to the REDCap EULA have clarified licensing for non-U.S. partners and cloud-based installations.”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Building and Supporting the REDCap Consortium: A Phased Approach > Phase 6: Expanding Globally (> 500 sites; ~ 2013–2018)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“More than 20% of REDCap partners are now located in countries designated as low-and middle-income by the World Bank.”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Building and Supporting the REDCap Consortium: A Phased Approach > Phase 6: Expanding Globally (> 500 sites; ~ 2013–2018)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For-profit software vendors also began to regard the REDCap community as a potential market, attempting to sell alternate software solutions.”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Building and Supporting the REDCap Consortium: A Phased Approach > Phase 6: Expanding Globally (> 500 sites; ~ 2013–2018)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By 2005, REDCap adoption had accelerated at Vanderbilt and we learned that other institutions faced the same challenge supporting their local research communities with centralized, HIPAA-compliant solutions for data planning, collection, and management.”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Building and Supporting the REDCap Consortium: A Phased Approach > Phase 2: Recruiting Software Collaborators (3 sites: ~ 2005–2006)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“our research data warehousing teams have built system exchange mechanisms allowing REDCap to serve as a final data delivery mechanism.”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“PCORI grant initiatives led to many features and functions necessary for participant engagement and patient reported data”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Discussion > Evolving the Platform
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“New Committees have formed around shareable training materials, software plug-in development, and electronic health record systems integration.”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Building and Supporting the REDCap Consortium: A Phased Approach > Phase 6: Expanding Globally (> 500 sites; ~ 2013–2018)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In general, REDCap Consortium partner distribution tends to correlate with population density and regions of the world where biomedical research is supported.”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Introduction
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Vanderbilt resources were limited and the effort of supporting partner sites resulted in an overall slowdown of feature programming as well as local end-user training and promotion.”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Building and Supporting the REDCap Consortium: A Phased Approach > Phase 2: Recruiting Software Collaborators (3 sites: ~ 2005–2006)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In 2018 alone, we added 575 new REDCap partners with approximately 2.75 international members for each U.S. request.”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Building and Supporting the REDCap Consortium: A Phased Approach > Phase 6: Expanding Globally (> 500 sites; ~ 2013–2018)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we have observed a gradual increase among REDCap partner institutions adopting virtualized environments running REDCap, and in more recent years, containerized solutions for supporting the software platform.”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Building and Supporting the REDCap Consortium: A Phased Approach > Phase 6: Expanding Globally (> 500 sites; ~ 2013–2018)
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Empowering local research teams to create and manage their own REDCap projects reduced per-project cost and ultimately allowed Vanderbilt to provide REDCap at no cost to any student, staff, or faculty member for any research project.”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Building and Supporting the REDCap Consortium: A Phased Approach > Phase 1: Developing REDCap at Vanderbilt University (1 site: ~ 2004–2005)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The number of REDCap end users has grown proportionately, creating additional demand for generalized REDCap training.”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Building and Supporting the REDCap Consortium: A Phased Approach > Phase 6: Expanding Globally (> 500 sites; ~ 2013–2018)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The paper EULA documents required signature by institutional officials on both sides, which introduced a two-to-three-week administrative turnaround time for joining the Consortium.”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Building and Supporting the REDCap Consortium: A Phased Approach > Phase 4: Creating a Broader National Presence (~ 50 sites; ~ 2008–2009)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Experts in informatics, biostatistics, data warehousing, clinical systems, trial operations, standards and ontologies, security methods, computer science, global health, mobile systems, library science, and other domains participate in the consortium and consult with the development team as needed.”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Building and Supporting the REDCap Consortium: A Phased Approach > Phase 6: Expanding Globally (> 500 sites; ~ 2013–2018)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“groups that were not proactive in their use of the Consortium mailing list were less likely to integrate with the existing community.”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Building and Supporting the REDCap Consortium: A Phased Approach > Phase 6: Expanding Globally (> 500 sites; ~ 2013–2018)
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Organizations that adopted REDCap during this Phase were typically U.S.-based academic medical centers, though we also began working with a few highly motivated international partners from Japan, Singapore, and Canada.”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Building and Supporting the REDCap Consortium: A Phased Approach > Phase 4: Creating a Broader National Presence (~ 50 sites; ~ 2008–2009)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Core model enabled us to provide hosting services to users outside of Vanderbilt whose needs went beyond standard REDCap infrastructure, allowed diversification of our financial support model, and introduced the REDCap platform to more diverse users (including industry based research teams).”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Building and Supporting the REDCap Consortium: A Phased Approach > Phase 5: Building a Diverse Community (~ 500 sites; ~ 2009–2012)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“During the Ebola outbreak in 2014, we saw a rapid mobilization of REDCap partner sites sharing methods for surveillance data collection in both academia and state governments, setting the stage for additional attention and adoption across U.S. state health departments, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and other government agencies.”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Building and Supporting the REDCap Consortium: A Phased Approach > Phase 6: Expanding Globally (> 500 sites; ~ 2013–2018)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Key features of the model have been early strategic partnering followed by managed growth and support of our community in stages.”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“New telephone and SMS-based survey features, “offline” functionality via the REDCap mobile application for coordinators, and a separate mobile application (MyCap, https://www.projectmycap.org) for participants have enabled research data collection in settings unsuited to traditional web-based applications.”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Building and Supporting the REDCap Consortium: A Phased Approach > Phase 6: Expanding Globally (> 500 sites; ~ 2013–2018)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“core components of our model may not be suited to all groups.”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Discussion > Evolving the Platform
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“although REDCap is available at no cost, it is not open source software.”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Discussion > Evolving the Platform
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“REDCap’s back-end architecture, all of which runs on open source components, is very flexible and does not force strict requirements for general implementation.”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Building and Supporting the REDCap Consortium: A Phased Approach > Phase 6: Expanding Globally (> 500 sites; ~ 2013–2018)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The REDCap model has been successful to date, growing from a single site to a global consortium over the course of approximately 13 years.”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Portability of project metadata across REDCap installations has allowed new types of sharing and collaboration.”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Building and Supporting the REDCap Consortium: A Phased Approach > Phase 6: Expanding Globally (> 500 sites; ~ 2013–2018)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As the Consortium has grown, so has the sophistication and influence of our Consortium partners.”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Building and Supporting the REDCap Consortium: A Phased Approach > Phase 6: Expanding Globally (> 500 sites; ~ 2013–2018)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The REDCap Consortium has proven a successful model for software development and dissemination.”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By limiting Consortium membership to non-profit and government organizations, Vanderbilt reserved the right to market REDCap in the commercial space and also to perform fee-based hosting for research teams in organizations not able or willing to join the REDCap consortium.”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Discussion > Evolving the Platform
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Recent work with major cloud vendors on deployment scripts and automated REDCap upgrade methods have created an opportunity for partners to set up REDCap installations in the cloud, thereby eliminating the need for on-site hardware and reducing local systems administrator support.”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Building and Supporting the REDCap Consortium: A Phased Approach > Phase 6: Expanding Globally (> 500 sites; ~ 2013–2018)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Software feature requests and guidance from active research teams have enabled the platform to grow from a rudimentary feature set (data capture, data export, logging) to a rich set of modules capable of supporting diverse research operations on almost any scale.”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“REDCap can operate “onpremise” (on the local institution’s hardware servers or virtualized servers) or on various cloud-based infrastructures (e.g., AWS, Azure, Google Cloud).”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Building and Supporting the REDCap Consortium: A Phased Approach > Phase 6: Expanding Globally (> 500 sites; ~ 2013–2018)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The REDCap platform and Consortium represent only a single model in terms of software development and dissemination.”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Eligible partners must be non-profit or government institutions (not individuals), comply with U.S. export regulations, and agree to the EULA terms, which include not sharing the codebase with third parties and not offering REDCap “reseller” services.”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Discussion > Evolving the Platform
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While the REDCap software development and consortium growth model have been successful”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Discussion > Evolving the Platform
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The iterative software design philosophy and incremental consortium growth fostered a collaborative spirit during REDCap’s early days, which has been sustained through the active participation of thousands of REDCap administrators in REDCap calls, mailing lists, working groups, and conferences.”
§ The REDCap Consortium: Building an International Community of Software Platform Partners > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
The core principles of the REDCap Consortium model are generalizable to other software development teams or sharing consortia.
“we believe the core principles are generalizable and can benefit any software development team or sharing consortium.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The randomization table providing the basis for the computerized allocation in REDCap [182, 183] will be generated by an external researcher, who will be the only one with access to the original randomization table. Enrolment and the generation of the allocation code will be automatized via REDCap [182, 183] and hence cannot be influenced by any member of the research team.”
From Efficacy of a transdiagnostic Internet prevention approach in adolescents (EMPATIA study): study protocol of a randomized controlled trial (2024) · cites this paper as [183]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“REDCap [182, 183] will be used for data collection (interviews, online surveys). It provides user-level access control as it is only accessible to authorized personnel. To ensure traceability of relevant processing operations, changes with username, date, time, and modification are logged (audit trail) and can be controlled at any time.”
From Efficacy of a transdiagnostic Internet prevention approach in adolescents (EMPATIA study): study protocol of a randomized controlled trial (2024) · cites this paper as [183]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“pregnant individuals were assigned using REDCap’s randomization function via a 1:1 allocation ratio to MB-P or usual prenatal care.”
From Effects of a Personalized Stress Management Intervention on Maternal Mental Health: A Randomized Clinical Trial. (2025) · cites this paper as Harris et al. 2019
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“This randomization sequence was created by a statistician unaffiliated with the study to ensure masking to the randomization scheme and was implemented by REDCAP’s randomization software based on the participant’s location52,53.”
From Autonomous artificial intelligence increases screening and follow-up for diabetic retinopathy in youth: the ACCESS randomized control trial (2024) · cites this paper as [52]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“118 additional families completed a REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture, [51,52]) screening form but were not enrolled.”
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Signed informed consent was obtained from all participants via REDCap (Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN) [25, 26].”
From Recruitment, retention and recouperation: lessons learned from a study aimed at assessing burnout mitigation in physician learners (2025) · cites this paper as [26]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The randomization table will be uploaded to the web-based Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) [182, 183] by a REDCap administrator from the Clinical Trials Unit. Afterwards, it will become inaccessible for the external researcher who generated the randomization table and remain inaccessible for the research team.”
From Efficacy of a transdiagnostic Internet prevention approach in adolescents (EMPATIA study): study protocol of a randomized controlled trial (2024) · cites this paper as [183]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“After baseline measures (T1) participants are randomized to one of the two conditions by a research assistant who does not conduct assessments, using computerized randomization (REDCAP) [53, 54].”
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“Allocation concealment will be ensured as the allocation code will not be visible to the research team before a participant has been assigned to one of the treatment conditions.”
From Efficacy of a transdiagnostic Internet prevention approach in adolescents (EMPATIA study): study protocol of a randomized controlled trial (2024) · cites this paper as [183]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“The sequence list was kept in Research Electronic Data Capture software [22], preventing the research team from anticipating to which arm the next participant would be allocated. Data were released after the baseline data collection was completed.”
Citations
Cites
Harris, P. A., Taylor, R., Thielke, R., Payne, J., Gonzalez, N., & Conde, J. G. (2009) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010 · Cited by 51,384 · cited 4×
“The REDCap system data architecture was originally flat, using a set of five replicable database tables for each project as previously described (for scalability, we later moved to an entity-attribute-value data model utilizing global tables in a single MySQL database) [26].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationCentral challenges facing the national clinical research enterprise
Sung, N. S., Crowley, W. F., Genel, M., Salber, P., Sandy, L., Sherwood, L. M., Johnson, S. B., Catanese, V., Tilson, H., Getz, K., et al. (2003) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.289.10.1278 · Cited by 1,235
Whetzel, P. L., Noy, N. F., Shah, N. H., Alexander, P. R., Nyulas, C. I., Tudorache, T., & Musen, M. A. (2011) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkr469 · Cited by 793 · cited 1×
“The growth of the REDCap Consortium and user base has created opportunities to collaborate with other consortia (e.g., PhenX [52,53], Medical Data Models [54], BioPortal [55], PROMIS [56]) to integrate standardized terminologies and instruments.”
BackgroundLaunching PCORnet, a national patient-centered clinical research network
Fleurence, R., Curtis, L. H., Califf, R. M., Platt, R., Selby, J. V., & Brown, J. S. (2014) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2014-002747 · Cited by 654
Procurement of shared data instruments for Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap)
Obeid, J. S., McGraw, C. A., Minor, B. L., Conde, J. G., Pawluk, R., Lin, M. K., Wang, J., Banks, S. R., Hemphill, S. A., Taylor, R., et al. (2012) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2012.10.006 · Cited by 285 · cited 1×
“We created a “shared instrument library” where REDCap users at any institution could download and use REDCap-reviewed versions of validated data collection instruments [51].”
MethodSelf-citationGlobal software development and collaboration : barriers and solutions
Noll, J., Beecham, S., & Richardson, I. (2010) · University of Limerick Institutional Repository (University of Limerick) · doi:10.34961/9505 · Cited by 271
Bevans, M. F., Ross, A. C., & Cella, D. F. (2014) · Nursing Outlook · doi:10.1016/j.outlook.2014.05.009 · Cited by 242
Critically Ill Children During the 2009–2010 Influenza Pandemic in the United States
Randolph, A. G., Vaughn, F., Sullivan, R., Rubinson, L., Thompson, B. T., Yoon, G., Smoot, E., Rice, T. W., Loftis, L. L., Helfaer, M., et al. (2011) · Pediatrics · doi:10.1542/peds.2011-0774 · Cited by 222
The Initial Response to the Boston Marathon Bombing
Gates, J. D., Arabian, S. S., Biddinger, P. D., Blansfield, J., Burke, P., Chung, S., Fischer, J., Friedman, F. D., Gervasini, A. A., Goralnick, E., et al. (2014) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/sla.0000000000000914 · Cited by 185
Innovation Happens Elsewhere: Open Source as Business Strategy
Goldman, R., & Gabriel, R. P. (2005) · Cited by 138
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Committee to Review the Clinical and Translational Science Awards Program at the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, Board on Health Sciences Policy, Institute of Medicine, The CTSA Program at NIH: Opportunities for Advancing Clinical and Translational Research, National Academies Press (US), Washington (DC), 2013. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK144067/ (accessed December 10, 2014).
- Nadan, 2004, Software licensing in the 21st century: Are software licenses really sales, and how will the software industry respond, AIPLA Q. J., 32, 555
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 23,801–23,840 of 23,840
Kalyetsi, R., Lewandowski, K., Ndizeye, R., Reyes, R., Rapheal, M., Bwambale, A., Baguma, E., Liao, H., Giandomenico, D. A., Shook‐Sa, B. E., et al. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-11062919/v1
Perspectives on Gender Equity: A National Survey of Pediatric Hospital Medicine Division Leaders
McDaniel, L. M., Jones, M., Sharp, E., et al. (2026) · Hospital Pediatrics · doi:10.1542/hpeds.2026-009495
The Bern Sleep-Wake Registry: A 25-year multimodal resource for data-driven sleep medicinePreprint
van der Meer, J., Filchenko, I., Brill, A., Wenz, E., Fregolente, L. G., Zub, K., Dietmann, A., Schaefer, C., Roethlisberger, S. C., Helmy, A., et al. (2026) · medRxiv · doi:10.64898/2026.10.09.26364965
Making the Diagnosis of Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia in Australia
Cai, M., Frohlich, M., Owens, L., et al. (2026) · Pediatric Pulmonology · doi:10.1002/ppul.71863
Batchek, D. J., Lynch, D. H., Herring, L., et al. (2026) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu18203336
Eckert, J., Walsh, A., Young, A., et al. (2026) · European Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1007/s10654-026-01437-8
Qualitative study exploring peer health education with women experiencing incarceration in the USA
Kralles, H., Yan, F., Aqel, H., et al. (2026) · Health Education Journal · doi:10.1177/00178969261489683
Katsumata, R., Störsrud, S., Simrén, M., & Nybacka, S. (2026) · Neurogastroenterology & Motility · doi:10.1111/nmo.70464
Meyer, R., Sun, J., Lombardi, C. A., Shats, M., Yu, P. H., Abbasi, F., Berberian, A., Manlinguez, A., Kulkarni, S., Pisarska, M., et al. (2026) · European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology X · doi:10.1016/j.eurox.2026.100500
Perceptions of a Community-Based Perinatal Mental Health Intervention
Ahlers‐Schmidt, C. R., Provines, J., Young, M., & Hervey, A. M. (2026) · Health Education & Behavior · doi:10.1177/10901981261491342
Leveraging routine scheduling patterns to unshift Date-Shifted clinical data
Kudlicki, A. S., Malin, B., & Bernstam, E. V. (2026) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2026.105107
Garre, A., Ortiz, A. N., Rubio, S., Palomares, M. T. D.-L., Riestra, S., Alonso‐Galán, H., Fernandez-Salgado, E., Ferreiro‐Iglesias, R., Vela, M., Ponferrada, Á., et al. (2026) · Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics · doi:10.1111/apt.70987
Cognitive concerns and support needs among alcohol and other drug treatment clients
Verón, G., Winter, D. T., Agu, J., Ridley, N. J., Simpson, L., Kamminga, J., Luksza, J., DACRIN Cognitive Survey Project Group, Montebello, M. E., & Monds, L. A. (2026) · Advances in Dual Diagnosis · doi:10.1108/add-03-2026-0009
Beh, S. Y., Linn, K. Z., Ong, X. Y., et al. (2026) · Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology · doi:10.1017/ice.2026.10546
Equitable spam detection and prevention in a community-engaged public health survey
Farash, S., Sienkiewicz, H., Solomon, M., & Lynch, K. (2026) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2026.1751698
Herrera, R., Mabe-Castro, M., Castillo-Aguilar, M., et al. (2026) · Medunab · doi:10.29375/01237047.5365
Rattananukrom, C., Waranophirun, P., Panitchote, A., et al. (2026) · Helicobacter · doi:10.1111/hel.70171
Joly, J. M., Sutyak, K. M., Nguyen, T., et al. (2026) · Journal of Surgical Research · doi:10.1016/j.jss.2026.09.017
Belkin, R., Matusov, Y., & Belkin, B. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-11176895/v1
Canadian Otolaryngologists’ Perspectives on Tracheostomy Care: Insights From a Nationwide Survey
Edward, J., Phan, A., Fournier, I., Olivier, M.-J., & Leclerc, A. (2026) · Journal of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · doi:10.1177/19160216261485563
Kurth, M., Suzuki, A., Myers, J. S., et al. (2026) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2026-123025
Plasma Exchange and Daratumumab for Myeloma Cast Nephropathy
Shincovich, C. I., Chewcharat, A., Adomi, M., McGee, E. E., Kim, R., Pirovano, M., Prosek, J., Devarakonda, S. S., Leisring, J. M., Obole, E., et al. (2026) · American Journal of Hematology · doi:10.1002/ajh.70516
Keltz, E., Ng, E., Spiers, L., et al. (2026) · MUSCULOSKELETAL SURGERY · doi:10.1007/s12306-026-00973-6
Ray, L. A., Pike, J. M., MACHUCA, L. A., Eckert, G. J., Broderick, P. C., & Hannon, T. S. (2026) · Complementary Therapies in Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.ctim.2026.103451
Grant, B., Beyera, G. K., & Gadd, N. (2026) · Disability and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1080/09638288.2026.2743816
O’Brien, K. H., Pei, Y., Vruwink, O., Becker, N., Klukas, C., & Covington, N. V. (2026) · American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology · doi:10.1044/2026_ajslp-26-00153
Practice Preferences of Mohs Histology Technicians: A Web-Based Survey
Huang, C. A., Wong, S., Lane, J. M., et al. (2026) · Dermatologic Surgery · doi:10.1097/dss.0000000000005391
Kubota, N., Hirakawa, Y., Manaka, T., et al. (2026) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.117893
Barday, M., Butters, C., Gregor, S. F. M., et al. (2026) · The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal · doi:10.1097/inf.0000000000005427
Swartz, S. J., Spielman, G., Agezew, S., et al. (2026) · JCO Global Oncology · doi:10.1200/go-26-00168
Running-related injury occurrence decreases with shoe minimalism
Cheung, R. T. H., Jassal, R. S., Hébert‐Losier, K., et al. (2026) · Footwear Science · doi:10.1080/19424280.2026.2737319
Chu, D., Schuster, T., Engler, K., Vicente, S., Lessard, D., Routy, J.-P., Kronfli, N., Cox, J., de Pokomandy, A., Palich, R., et al. (2026) · Machine Learning with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.mlwa.2026.101036
Bury, S. M., Flower, R. L., Richardson, E. K., Phillips, D., Dwyer, P. S. R., & Spoor, J. R. (2026) · Neurodiversity · doi:10.1177/27546330261497307 · Cited by 2
Alshamrani, M. M., El‐Saed, A., Farahat, F. M., et al. (2026) · Epidemiology and Infection · doi:10.1017/s0950268826101964
Syeda, A. F., Elhassan, I., Shersad, F., et al. (2026) · Frontiers in Medicine · doi:10.3389/fmed.2026.1900166
Carretero-Randez, C., Orts‐Cortés, M. I., Nogueira, L. D. S., Moncho‐Vasallo, J., Camacho‐Bejarano, R., & the NUTRIFAG Working Group (2026) · Nursing Open · doi:10.1002/nop2.70852
Ram, B., Elagandula, V., Counts, L., Zabotka, L., Williams, A. H., Wynja, K., Malone, S. M., & Graetz, D. E. (2026) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2026.1912141
Characterizing In-Home Safety Challenges and Strategies for Children With Medical Complexity
Walsh, P., Jolliff, A. F., Seewald, S., Haywood, C., Coleman, C. L., Storey, M. M., Harris, D. S., Walsh, K. E., Khan, A., Werner, N. E., et al. (2026) · PEDIATRICS · doi:10.1542/peds.2026-077711
Patient Perspectives on Alternative Payment Models in Plastic Surgery
Starr, B. F., Malek, A. J., Shen, Y., et al. (2026) · Journal of Surgical Research · doi:10.1016/j.jss.2026.08.068
Quan, Z., Chen, C., Popowski, S. A., Nguyen, T., Rushton, K., Reddy, M. C., Mohr, D. C., Orden, K. A. V., & Meyerhoff, J. (2026) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/95930
Metadata
- Authors
- Harris, P. A., Taylor, R., Minor, B. L., Elliott, V., Fernandez, M., O'Neal, L., McLeod, L., Delacqua, G., Delacqua, F., Kirby, J., & Duda, S. N.
- Affiliations
- Vanderbilt University (US)
- Vanderbilt University Medical Center (US)
- Corresponding author
- Harris, Paul A.
- Venue
- Journal of Biomedical Informatics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-07
- Volume
- 95
- Pages
- 103208
- ISSN
- 1532-0464 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC7254481
- OpenAlex
- W2944434778
- Semantic Scholar
- aea266d1d66f01c9141385a7e1baf6d1599dcae9
- Cited by
- 24,013
- References
- 63
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3706 · 2025: 4752 · 2024: 4657 · 2023: 3779 · 2022: 3249 · 2021: 2604 · 2020: 1153 · 2019: 70
- FWCI
- 2198.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Biomedical Informatics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- NIH/NCATS (UL1 TR002243)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Research Data Management Practices
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Scientific Computing and Data Management
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Keywords
- REDCap, research data management tools, consortium model, software adoption
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Medical Informatics, Software, Information Dissemination, Biomedical Research, Internationality
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-15, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-15 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
