A centralized research data repository enhances retrospective outcomes research capacity: a case report

Abstract

This paper describes our considerations and methods for implementing an open-source centralized research data repository (CRDR) and reports its impact on retrospective outcomes research capacity in the urology department at Columbia University. We performed retrospective pretest and post-test analyses of user acceptance, workflow efficiency, and publication quantity and quality (measured by journal impact factor) before and after the implementation. The CRDR transformed the research workflow and enabled a new research model. During the pre- and post-test periods, the department's average annual retrospective study publication rate was 11.5 and 25.6, respectively; the average publication impact score was 1.7 and 3.1, respectively. The new model was adopted by 62.5% (5/8) of the clinical scientists within the department. Additionally, four basic science researchers outside the department took advantage of the implemented model. The average proximate time required to complete a retrospective study decreased from 12 months before the implementation to <6 months after the implementation. Implementing a CRDR appears to be effective in enhancing the outcomes research capacity for one academic department.

Figure 1

Research project workflow. The new urology research workflow was an unexpected result of the implementation of the centralized research data repository (CRDR). As seen here the CRDR enables this workflow by providing support at key steps along an iterative research process encompassing feasibility assessment, missing data/chart review, and dataset generation. Additionally, the CRDR makes possible an iterative data enrichment process.

Figure 2

Columbia urology publications January 2005–December 2011. This figure represents the urology department's academic contribution over the past 7 years. Of note, most contributions are in the form of retrospective database studies (Retro: red bars).

Figure 3

Columbia urology retrospective research publications. This figure isolates retrospective studies contrasting the contribution of the new model to that of the old. From 2009 to 2011, the new model had a steady rise in contributions to the literature. In 2011, publications in the new model had overtaken those in the old model.

Figure 4

Columbia urology retrospective research publication quality. This graph illustrates the average journal impact factor by year and research model. Publication quality and quantity both increase continuously in the new model and accordingly decreased in the old model.