EDP Sciences logo
Subscriber Authentication Point
Search
Menu
Home All issues Volume 34 / No 11 (Novembre 2018) Med Sci (Paris), 34 11 (2018) 972-977 References
Numérique et santé
Free Access
Issue
Med Sci (Paris)
Volume 34, Number 11, Novembre 2018
Numérique et santé
Page(s) 972 - 977
Section M/S Revues
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/medsci/2018235
Published online 10 December 2018
  1. Geissbuhler A, Safran C, Buchan I, et al. Trustworthy reuse of health data: A transnational perspective. Int J Med Inform 2013 ; 82 : 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  2. Gunter TD, Terry NP. The emergence of national electronic health record architectures in the United States and Australia: models, costs, and questions. J Med Internet Res 2005 ; 7 : 1 e3. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Higgins JK. Electronic Health Records: Big Business, and Getting Bigger. TechNewsWorld Best of ECT News. 2010 (May 14). http://www.crmbuyer.com/story/69994.html. [Google Scholar]
  4. Jensen PB, Jensen LJ, Brunak S. Mining electronic health records: towards better research applications and clinical care. Nat Rev Genet 2012 ; 13 : 6 395–405. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bateman S. Médecine personnalisée, un concept flou, des pratiques diversifiées. Med/Sci (Paris) 2014; 30 (hors série n° 2) : 8–13. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  6. Boudry C. Biologie/Médecine 2.0 : état des lieux. Med/Sci (Paris) 2012; 28 : 653–8. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Coorevits P, Sundgren M, Klein GO, et al. Electronic health records: new opportunities for clinical research. J Intern Med 2013 ; 274 : 6 547–560. [Google Scholar]
  8. De Moor G, Kalra D, Sundgren M, et al. Opportunities for clinical research in European hospitals: the EHR4CR platform. Health management 2014 ; 14 : 59–60. [Google Scholar]
  9. Tufts. Analysis and insight into critical drug development issues. Tufts University Center for the Study of Drug Development (CSDD). Impact Report 2013; 15(1) : 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  10. Tufts. Rising protocol complexity, execution burden varies widely by phase and therapeutic areas (TA). Tufts University Center for the Study of Drug Development (CSDD) Report 2010; 12(3). [Google Scholar]
  11. Sertkaya A, Birkenbach A, Berlind A, Eyraud J. Examination of Clinical Trial Costs and Barriers for Drug Development. ASPE 2014 July 25. http://aspe.hhs.gov/sp/reports/2014/ClinicalTrials/rpt_erg.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  12. Kalra D, Schmidt A, Potts HWW, et al. Case report from the EHR4CR project - A european survey on electronic health records systems for clinical research. iHealth Connections 2011; 1(2) : 108–13. [Google Scholar]
  13. Micallef J.. Table ronde 3: Comment améliorer la compétitivité de la France en recherche clinique. Med/Sci (Paris) 2014 ; 30 : 28–32. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. Getz K, Wenger J. Assessing the impact of protocol design change on clinical trial performance. Am J Ther 2008 ; 15 : 449–456. [Google Scholar]
  15. Alsumidaie M. Aggregated EMR: Mitigating trial risk through quality by design protocols. Applied Clinical Trials online 2014; August. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140828131707-55450526-aggregated-emr-mitigating-trial-risk-through-quality-by-design-protocols. [Google Scholar]
  16. Mestre-Ferrandiz J, Sussex J, Towse A. The R&D cost of a new medicine. Office of Health Economics 2012. [Google Scholar]
  17. De Moor G, Sundgren M, Kalra D, et al. Using electronic health records for clinical research: the case of the EHR4CR project. J Biomed Inform 2014 ; 53 : 162–173. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Osterwalder A, Pigneur Y. Business Model Generation. PEARSON EDUCATION 2009 ; 288p. [Google Scholar]
  19. Dupont D, Beresniak A, Sundgren M, et al. Business analysis for a sustainable, multi-stakeholder ecosystem forleveraging the Electronic Health Records for Clinical Research (EHR4CR) platform in Europe. Int J Med Inform 2018 ; 97 : 341–352. [Google Scholar]
  20. Beresniak A, Schmidt A, Proeve J, et al. Cost-benefit assessment of using electronic health records data for clinical research versus current practices: Contribution of the Electronic Health Records for Clinical Research (EHR4CR) European Project. Contemp Clin Trials 2016 ; 46 : 85–91. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Dupont D, Beresniak A, Schmidt A, et al. Assessing the Financial Impact of Reusing Electronic Health Records Data for Clinical Research: Results from the EHR4CR European Project. J Health Med Informat 2016 ; 7(3) 235. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  22. Kalra D, Stroetmann V, Sundgren M, et al. The European Institute for Innovation through Health Data. Learn Health Sys 2018 ; 1 : 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  23. Salimi T, Lehner JP, Epstein RS. A framework for pharmaceutical value-based innovations. J Comp Eff Res 2012 : 1(Suppl. 1) : 3–7. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Lehner JP, Epstein RS, Salimi T. Integrating new approaches for clinical development: translational research and relative effectiveness. J Comp Eff Res 2012 ; 1(1 Suppl) : 15–21. [Google Scholar]
  25. Epstein R, Sidorov J, Lehner JP, Salimi T. Integrating scientific and real-world evidence within and beyond the drug development process. J Comp Eff Res 2012 ; 1 : (1 Suppl): 9–13. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.