Common Data Elements in Radiology

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016161553

In this article the authors describe an approach to improving automated exchange of radiologic information: the common data element, which defines the attributes and allowable values of a unit of information.

Diagnostic radiologists generally produce unstructured information in the form of images and narrative text reports. Although designed for human consumption, radiologic reports contain a wealth of information that could be valuable for clinical care, research, and quality improvement if that information could be extracted by automated systems. Unfortunately, the lack of structure in radiologic reports limits the ability of information systems to share information easily with other systems. A common data element (CDE)—a unit of information used in a shared, predefined fashion—can improve the ability to exchange information seamlessly among information systems. In this article, a model and a repository of radiologic CDEs is described, and three important applications are highlighted. CDEs can help advance radiologic practice, research, and performance improvement, and thus, it is crucial that CDEs be adopted widely in radiologic information systems.

© RSNA, 2016

References

  • 1. Richesson RL, Nadkarni P. Data standards for clinical research data collection forms: current status and challenges. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2011;18(3):341–346.
  • 2. IOM (Institute of Medicine). Best care at lower cost: The path to continuously learning health care in America. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2013.
  • 3. Rubinstein YR, McInnes P. NIH/NCATS/GRDR® Common Data Elements: A leading force for standardized data collection. Contemp Clin Trials 2015;42:78–80.
  • 4. Cai T, Giannopoulos AA, Yu S, et al. Natural language processing technologies in radiology research and clinical applications. RadioGraphics 2016;36(1):176–191.
  • 5. Winget MD, Baron JA, Spitz MR, et al. Development of common data elements: the experience of and recommendations from the early detection research network. Int J Med Inform 2003;70(1):41–48.
  • 6. Nadkarni PM, Brandt CA. The Common Data Elements for cancer research: remarks on functions and structure. Methods Inf Med 2006;45(6):594–601.
  • 7. Warzel DB, Andonaydis C, McCurry B, Chilukuri R, Ishmukhamedov S, Covitz P. Common data element (CDE) management and deployment in clinical trials. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2003:1048.
  • 8. Saver JL, Warach S, Janis S, et al. Standardizing the structure of stroke clinical and epidemiologic research data: the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) Stroke Common Data Element (CDE) project. Stroke 2012;43(4):967–973.
  • 9. Loring DW, Lowenstein DH, Barbaro NM, et al. Common data elements in epilepsy research: development and implementation of the NINDS epilepsy CDE project. Epilepsia 2011;52(6):1186–1191.
  • 10. Whyte J, Vasterling J, Manley GT. Common data elements for research on traumatic brain injury and psychological health: current status and future development. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010;91(11):1692–1696.
  • 11. McClay JC, Park PJ, Janczewski MG, Langford LH. Standard for improving emergency information interoperability: the HL7 data elements for emergency department systems. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2015;22(3):529–535.
  • 12. Solbrig HR. Metadata and the reintegration of clinical information: ISO 11179. MD Comput 2000;17(3):25–28.
  • 13. Hume S, Aerts J, Sarnikar S, Huser V. Current applications and future directions for the CDISC Operational Data Model standard: A methodological review. J Biomed Inform 2016;60:352–362.
  • 14. Rubin DL. Creating and curating a terminology for radiology: ontology modeling and analysis. J Digit Imaging 2008;21(4):355–362.
  • 15. Langlotz CP. RadLex: a new method for indexing online educational materials. RadioGraphics 2006;26(6):1595–1597.
  • 16. SNOMED CT. International Health Terminology Standards Development Organisation. http://www.ihtsdo.org/snomed-ct/. Accessed July 31, 2015.
  • 17. McDonald CJ, Huff SM, Suico JG, et al. LOINC, a universal standard for identifying laboratory observations: a 5-year update. Clin Chem 2003;49(4):624–633.
  • 18. Morgan TA, Helibrun ME, Kahn CE Jr. Reporting initiative of the Radiological Society of North America: progress and new directions. Radiology 2014;273(3):642–645.
  • 19. Boland GW, Thrall JH, Gazelle GS, et al. Decision support for radiologist report recommendations. J Am Coll Radiol 2011;8(12):819–823.
  • 20. Channin DS, Mongkolwat P, Kleper V, Rubin DL. The annotation and image mark-up project. Radiology 2009;253(3):590–592.
  • 21. Rubin DL, Willrett D, O’Connor MJ, Hage C, Kurtz C, Moreira DA. Automated tracking of quantitative assessments of tumor burden in clinical trials. Transl Oncol 2014;7(1):23–35.
  • 22. Burnside ES, Sickles EA, Bassett LW, et al. The ACR BI-RADS experience: learning from history. J Am Coll Radiol 2009;6(12):851–860.
  • 23. Mitchell DG, Bruix J, Sherman M, Sirlin CB. LI-RADS (Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System): summary, discussion, and consensus of the LI-RADS Management Working Group and future directions. Hepatology 2015;61(3):1056–1065.
  • 24. Morin RL, Coombs LP, Chatfield MB. ACR Dose Index Registry. J Am Coll Radiol 2011;8(4):288–291.
  • 25. Parke DW II, Lum F, Rich WL. The IRIS(R) Registry: Purpose and perspectives. Ophthalmologe 2016 Jun 15. [Epub ahead of print]
  • 26. Fiore LD, Lavori PW. Integrating randomized comparative effectiveness research with patient care. N Engl J Med 2016;374(22):2152–2158.
  • 27. Murthy VH, Krumholz HM, Gross CP. Participation in cancer clinical trials: race-, sex-, and age-based disparities. JAMA 2004;291(22):2720–2726.
  • 28. Thrall JH. Moreton Lecture: Imaging in the age of precision medicine. J Am Coll Radiol 2015;12(10):1106–1111.
  • 29. Richesson RL, Chute CG. Health information technology data standards get down to business: maturation within domains and the emergence of interoperability. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2015;22(3):492–494.

Article History

Received July 4, 2016; revision requested August 18; revision received August 28; accepted September 14; final version accepted September 14.
Published online: Nov 10 2016
Published in print: June 2017