Clinical Data Reuse or Secondary Use: Current Status and Potential Future Progress
Open accessAbstract
Summary: Objective: To perform a review of recent research in clinical data reuse or secondary use, and envision future advances in this field. Methods: The review is based on a large literature search in MEDLINE (through PubMed), conference proceedings, and the ACM Digital Library, focusing only on research published between 2005 and early 2016. Each selected publication was reviewed by the authors, and a structured analysis and summarization of its content was developed. Results: The initial search produced 359 publications, reduced after a manual examination of abstracts and full publications. The following aspects of clinical data reuse are discussed: motivations and challenges, privacy and ethical concerns, data integration and interoperability, data models and terminologies, unstructured data reuse, structured data mining, clinical practice and research integration, and examples of clinical data reuse (quality measurement and learning healthcare systems). Conclusion: Reuse of clinical data is a fast-growing field recognized as essential to realize the potentials for high quality healthcare, improved healthcare management, reduced healthcare costs, population health management, and effective clinical research.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
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 whole process was aligned with principles of secondary clinical data reuse, governance, interoperability, and ethical compliance, ensuring reproducibility and transparency of the experiment.
“The whole process was aligned with the well-known principles of secondary clinical data reuse, governance, interoperability, and ethical compliance, which ensured the reproducibility and transparency of the experiment51.”
From K-STAMM: a knowledge-enhanced spatial - temporal attention model with multimodal fusion for pneumonia prediction (2026) · cites this paper as [51]
The paper’s “Motivations and Challenges for Clinical Data Reuse” and “Privacy and Ethical Concerns” sections discuss interoperability, organizational policies, and ethical protections for secondary use; page numbers are unavailable in our copy. It does not assess the citing authors’ process or establish that following those principles ensured their experiment’s reproducibility and transparency. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 215 · Cited by 204
Part of this paper’s reference list could not be split into single entries.
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- National Research Council (US) Committee on A Framework for Developing a New Taxonomy of Disease. Toward Precision Medicine: Building a Knowledge Network for Biomedical Research and a New Taxonomy of Disease. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2011.
- Dankar FK, Emam El K. Practicing Differen- tial Privacy in Health Care: A Review. TDP 2013;6(1):35-67.
- Authors
- Meystre, S. M., Lovis, C., Bürkle, T., Tognola, G., Budrionis, A., & Lehmann, C. U.
- Affiliations
- Medical University of South Carolina (US)
- University Hospital of Geneva (CH)
- Bern University of Applied Sciences (CH)
- Institute of Electronics, Computer and Telecommunication Engineering (IT)
- University Hospital of North Norway (NO)
- Vanderbilt University Medical Center (US)
- Venue
- Yearbook of Medical Informatics
- Publisher
- Georg Thieme Verlag KG
- Published
- 2017
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 01
- Pages
- 38-52
- ISSN
- 0943-4747 (ISSN-L)
- 2364-0502
- PMC
- PMC6239225
- OpenAlex
- W2612374874
- Cited by
- 204
- References
- 215
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 2
- FWCI
- 2.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Yearbook of Medical Informatics (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- ARBOR - Bern University of Applied Sciences Repository (submittedVersion)
- Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Research Data Management Practices
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
- Keywords
- clinical data reuse, secondary use of clinical data, privacy concerns, ethical considerations, data integration, interoperability, unstructured clinical data, quality measurement, learning healthcare systems, clinical research integration
- MeSH terms
- Delivery of Health Care, Forecasting, Humans, Biomedical Research, Data Mining
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
