Prieto-Merino David, Bebiano Da Providencia E Costa Rui, Bacallao Gallestey Jorge, Sofat Reecha, Chung Sheng-Chia, Potts Henry
Faculty of Epidemiology & Population Health London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine London United Kingdom.
Applied Statistical Methods in Medical Research Group Catholic University of San Antonio in Murcia Murcia Spain.
JMIRx Med. 2021 May 5;2(2):e20617. doi: 10.2196/20617. eCollection 2021 Apr-Jun.
With over 117 million COVID-19-positive cases declared and the death count approaching 3 million, we would expect that the highly digitalized health systems of high-income countries would have collected, processed, and analyzed large quantities of clinical data from patients with COVID-19. Those data should have served to answer important clinical questions such as: what are the risk factors for becoming infected? What are good clinical variables to predict prognosis? What kinds of patients are more likely to survive mechanical ventilation? Are there clinical subphenotypes of the disease? All these, and many more, are crucial questions to improve our clinical strategies against the epidemic and save as many lives as possible. One might assume that in the era of big data and machine learning, there would be an army of scientists crunching petabytes of clinical data to answer these questions. However, nothing could be further from the truth. Our health systems have proven to be completely unprepared to generate, in a timely manner, a flow of clinical data that could feed these analyses. Despite gigabytes of data being generated every day, the vast quantity is locked in secure hospital data servers and is not being made available for analysis. Routinely collected clinical data are, by and large, regarded as a tool to inform decisions about individual patients, and not as a key resource to answer clinical questions through statistical analysis. The initiatives to extract COVID-19 clinical data are often promoted by private groups of individuals and not by health systems, and are uncoordinated and inefficient. The consequence is that we have more clinical data on COVID-19 than on any other epidemic in history, but we have failed to analyze this information quickly enough to make a difference. In this viewpoint, we expose this situation and suggest concrete ideas that health systems could implement to dynamically analyze their routine clinical data, becoming learning health systems and reversing the current situation.
随着全球报告的新冠病毒阳性病例超过1.17亿例,死亡人数接近300万,我们预计高收入国家高度数字化的卫生系统会收集、处理并分析大量新冠患者的临床数据。这些数据本应用来回答一些重要的临床问题,比如:感染的风险因素有哪些?预测预后的良好临床变量是什么?哪些患者更有可能在机械通气中存活?这种疾病是否存在临床亚表型?所有这些以及更多问题,都是改善我们应对疫情的临床策略并尽可能挽救更多生命的关键问题。有人可能会认为,在大数据和机器学习时代,会有大批科学家处理海量临床数据来回答这些问题。然而,事实却远非如此。我们的卫生系统已证明完全没有准备好及时生成可供这些分析使用的临床数据流。尽管每天都会产生数千兆字节的数据,但大量数据被锁定在医院的安全数据服务器中,无法用于分析。总体而言,常规收集的临床数据通常被视为为个体患者决策提供信息的工具,而非通过统计分析回答临床问题的关键资源。提取新冠临床数据的举措往往由个人组成的私人团体推动,而非卫生系统,且缺乏协调、效率低下。结果是,我们拥有的关于新冠的临床数据比历史上任何其他疫情都多,但我们未能足够迅速地分析这些信息以产生影响。在本文观点中,我们揭示了这种情况,并提出了卫生系统可以实施的具体想法,以便动态分析其常规临床数据,成为学习型卫生系统并扭转当前局面。