'What's in the NIDDK CDR?'--public query tools for the NIDDK central data repository.

The National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive Disease (NIDDK) Central Data Repository (CDR) is a web-enabled resource available to researchers and the general public. The CDR warehouses clinical data and study documentation from NIDDK funded research, including such landmark studies as The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT, 1983-93) and the Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (EDIC, 1994-present) follow-up study which has been ongoing for more than 20 years. The CDR also houses data from over 7 million biospecimens representing 2 million subjects. To help users explore the vast amount of data stored in the NIDDK CDR, we developed a suite of search mechanisms called the public query tools (PQTs). Five individual tools are available to search data from multiple perspectives: study search, basic search, ontology search, variable summary and sample by condition. PQT enables users to search for information across studies. Users can search for data such as number of subjects, types of biospecimens and disease outcome variables without prior knowledge of the individual studies. This suite of tools will increase the use and maximize the value of the NIDDK data and biospecimen repositories as important resources for the research community. Database URL: https://www.niddkrepository.org/niddk/home.do.

The NIDDK Central Repository at 8 years--ambition, revision, use and impact.

The National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) Central Repository makes data and biospecimens from NIDDK-funded research available to the broader scientific community. It thereby facilitates: the testing of new hypotheses without new data or biospecimen collection; pooling data across several studies to increase statistical power; and informative genetic analyses using the Repository's well-curated phenotypic data. This article describes the initial database plan for the Repository and its revision using a simpler model. Among the lessons learned were the trade-offs between the complexity of a database design and the costs in time and money of implementation; the importance of integrating consent documents into the basic design; the crucial need for linkage files that associate biospecimen IDs with the masked subject IDs used in deposited data sets; and the importance of standardized procedures to test the integrity data sets prior to distribution. The Repository is currently tracking 111 ongoing NIDDK-funded studies many of which include genotype data, and it houses over 5 million biospecimens of more than 25 types including serum, plasma, stool, urine, DNA, red blood cells, buffy coat and tissue. Repository resources have supported a range of biochemical, clinical, statistical and genetic research (188 external requests for clinical data and 31 for biospecimens have been approved or are pending). Genetic research has included GWAS, validation studies, development of methods to improve statistical power of GWAS and testing of new statistical methods for genetic research. We anticipate that the future impact of the Repository's resources on biomedical research will be enhanced by (i) cross-listing of Repository biospecimens in additional searchable databases and biobank catalogs; (ii) ongoing deployment of new applications for querying the contents of the Repository; and (iii) increased harmonization of procedures, data collection strategies, questionnaires etc. across both research studies and within the vocabularies used by different repositories.

Resource allocation in orthopaedics: economic evaluation to priority setting.

In 2000 the World Health Organization launched the "Bone and Joint Decade" campaign in part to promote cost-effective treatments. This will impact the organization, delivery, and funding of health care as the population ages. However, it is well recognized that resources in health care are limited and it is essential the resources available are used to best effect. Thus, there has been greater emphasis in the orthopaedic literature on the use of economics. Still, there is little discussion of whether and how the results of these economic methods can be further used to aid resource allocation decisions. We discuss the suitability of economic methods for priority setting in orthopaedic surgery, arguing economic evaluation alone is not sufficient for addressing resource allocation decisions. We also describe an alternative approach to priority setting that has been steadily gaining prominence within health economics--program budgeting and marginal analysis--and use a working example from the United Kingdom National Health Service to illustrate its application within orthopaedic surgery.