Difference between revisions of "Template:Article of the week"

From LIMSWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Updated article of the week text.)
(Updated article of the week text.)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div style="float: left; margin: 0.5em 0.9em 0.4em 0em;">[[File:Tab2 Matthews JPathInfo2017 8.jpg|240px]]</div>
<div style="float: left; margin: 0.5em 0.9em 0.4em 0em;">[[File:Fig3 Husen DataSciJourn2017 16-1.png|240px]]</div>
'''"[[Journal:Usability evaluation of laboratory information systems|Usability evaluation of laboratory information systems]]"'''
'''"[[Journal:Recommended versus certified repositories: Mind the gap|Recommended versus certified repositories: Mind the gap]]"'''


Numerous studies have revealed widespread clinician frustration with the usability of [[electronic health record]]s (EHRs) that is counterproductive to adoption of EHR systems to meet the aims of healthcare reform. With poor system usability comes increased risk of negative unintended consequences. Usability issues could lead to user error and workarounds that have the potential to compromise patient safety and negatively impact the quality of care. While there is ample research on EHR usability, there is little [[information]] on the usability of [[laboratory information system]]s (LIS). Yet, an LIS facilitates the timely provision of a great deal of the information needed by physicians to make patient care decisions. Medical and technical advances in genomics that require processing of an increased volume of complex [[laboratory]] data further underscore the importance of developing a user-friendly LIS. This study aims to add to the body of knowledge on LIS usability. ('''[[Journal:Usability evaluation of laboratory information systems|Full article...]]''')<br />
Researchers are increasingly required to make research data publicly available in data repositories. Although several organizations propose criteria to recommend and evaluate the quality of data repositories, there is no consensus of what constitutes a good data repository. In this paper, we investigate, first, which data repositories are recommended by various stakeholders (publishers, funders, and community organizations) and second, which repositories are certified by a number of organizations. We then compare these two lists of repositories, and the criteria for recommendation and certification. We find that criteria used by organizations recommending and certifying repositories are similar, although the certification criteria are generally more detailed. We distill the lists of criteria into seven main categories: “Mission,” “Community/Recognition,” “Legal and Contractual Compliance,” “Access/Accessibility,” “Technical Structure/Interface,” “Retrievability,” and “Preservation.” Although the criteria are similar, the lists of repositories that are recommended by the various agencies are very different. Out of all of the recommended repositories, less than six percent obtained certification. As certification is becoming more important, steps should be taken to decrease this gap between recommended and certified repositories, and ensure that certification standards become applicable, and applied, to the repositories which researchers are currently using. ('''[[Journal:Recommended versus certified repositories: Mind the gap|Full article...]]''')<br />
<br />
<br />
''Recently featured'':  
''Recently featured'':  
: ▪ [[Journal:Usability evaluation of laboratory information systems|Usability evaluation of laboratory information systems]]
: ▪ [[Journal:Data management: New tools, new organization, and new skills in a French research institute|Data management: New tools, new organization, and new skills in a French research institute]]
: ▪ [[Journal:Data management: New tools, new organization, and new skills in a French research institute|Data management: New tools, new organization, and new skills in a French research institute]]
: ▪ [[Journal:Comprehending the health informatics spectrum: Grappling with system entropy and advancing quality clinical research|Comprehending the health informatics spectrum: Grappling with system entropy and advancing quality clinical research]]
: ▪ [[Journal:Comprehending the health informatics spectrum: Grappling with system entropy and advancing quality clinical research|Comprehending the health informatics spectrum: Grappling with system entropy and advancing quality clinical research]]
: ▪ [[Journal:Energy informatics: Fundamentals and standardization|Energy informatics: Fundamentals and standardization]]

Revision as of 17:58, 11 December 2017

Fig3 Husen DataSciJourn2017 16-1.png

"Recommended versus certified repositories: Mind the gap"

Researchers are increasingly required to make research data publicly available in data repositories. Although several organizations propose criteria to recommend and evaluate the quality of data repositories, there is no consensus of what constitutes a good data repository. In this paper, we investigate, first, which data repositories are recommended by various stakeholders (publishers, funders, and community organizations) and second, which repositories are certified by a number of organizations. We then compare these two lists of repositories, and the criteria for recommendation and certification. We find that criteria used by organizations recommending and certifying repositories are similar, although the certification criteria are generally more detailed. We distill the lists of criteria into seven main categories: “Mission,” “Community/Recognition,” “Legal and Contractual Compliance,” “Access/Accessibility,” “Technical Structure/Interface,” “Retrievability,” and “Preservation.” Although the criteria are similar, the lists of repositories that are recommended by the various agencies are very different. Out of all of the recommended repositories, less than six percent obtained certification. As certification is becoming more important, steps should be taken to decrease this gap between recommended and certified repositories, and ensure that certification standards become applicable, and applied, to the repositories which researchers are currently using. (Full article...)

Recently featured:

Usability evaluation of laboratory information systems
Data management: New tools, new organization, and new skills in a French research institute
Comprehending the health informatics spectrum: Grappling with system entropy and advancing quality clinical research