Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 280

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Common Data Element Project – approach and methods

Open access
Grinnon, Stacie T, Miller, Kristy, Marler, John R, Lu, Yun, Stout, Alexandra, Odenkirchen, Joanne, Kunitz, Selma·2012·Clinical Trials

Abstract

Background In neuroscience clinical research studies, much time and effort are devoted to deciding what data to collect and developing data collection forms and data management systems to capture the data. Many investigators receiving funding from National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), are required to share their data once their studies are complete, but the multitude of data definitions and formats make it extremely difficult to aggregate data or perform meta-analyses across studies. Purpose In an effort to assist investigators and accelerate data sharing in neuroscience clinical research, the NINDS has embarked upon the Common Data Element (CDE) Project. The data standards developed through the NINDS CDE Project enable clinical investigators to systematically collect data and should facilitate study start-up and data aggregation across the research community. Methods The NINDS CDE Team has taken a systematic, iterative approach to develop the critical core and the disease-specific CDEs. The CDE development process provides a mechanism for community involvement and buy-in, offers a structure for decision making, and includes a technical support team. Results Upon conclusion of the development process, the CDEs and accompanying tools are available on the Project Web site – http://www.commondataelements.ninds.nih.gov/ . The Web site currently includes the critical core (aka general) CDEs that are applicable to all clinical research studies regardless of therapeutic area as well as several disease-specific CDEs. Additional disease-specific CDEs will be added to the Web site once they are developed and vetted over the next 12 months. Limitations The CDEs will continue to evolve and will improve only if clinical researchers use and offer feedback about their experience with them. Thus, the NINDS program staff strongly encourages its clinical research grantees to use the CDEs and is expanding its efforts to educate the neuroscience research community about the CDEs and to train research teams to incorporate them into their studies. Conclusions Version 1.0 of a set of CDEs has been published, but publication is not the end of the development process. All CDEs will be evaluated and revised at least annually to ensure that they reflect current clinical research practices in neuroscience.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1740774512438980

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Grinnon, S. T., Miller, K., Marler, J. R., Lu, Y., Stout, A., Odenkirchen, J., & Kunitz, S.
Venue
Clinical Trials
Published
2012-02-27
Volume
9
Issue
3
Pages
322-329
ISSN
  • 1740-7745 (ISSN-L)
  • 1740-7753
OpenAlex
W2141464042
Cited by
280
References
3
FWCI
27.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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.

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.