Search

Abstract Fair allocation of funding in multi-centre clinical studies is challenging. Models commonly used in Germany - the case fees (“fixed-rate model”, FRM) and up-front staffing and consumables (“up-front allocation model”, UFAM) lack transparency and fail to suitably accommodate variations in centre performance. We developed a performance-based reimbursement model (PBRM) with automated calculation of conducted activities and applied it to the cohorts of the National Pandemic Cohort Network (NAPKON) within the Network of University Medicine (NUM). The study protocol activities, which were derived from data management systems, underwent validation through standardized quality checks by multiple stakeholders. The PBRM output (first funding period) was compared among centres and cohorts, and the cost-efficiency of the models was evaluated. Cases per centre varied from one to 164. The mean case reimbursement differed among the cohorts (1173.21€ [95% CI 645.68–1700.73] to 3863.43€ [95% CI 1468.89–6257.96]) and centres and mostly fell short of the expected amount. Model comparisons revealed higher cost-efficiency of the PBRM compared to FRM and UFAM, especially for low recruitment outliers. In conclusion, we have developed a reimbursement model that is transparent, accurate, and flexible. In multi-centre collaborations where heterogeneity between centres is expected, a PBRM could be used as a model to address performance discrepancies. Trial registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04768998 ; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04747366 ; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04679584 .

Abstract Anonymization has the potential to foster the sharing of medical data. State-of-the-art methods use mathematical models to modify data to reduce privacy risks. However, the degree of protection must be balanced against the impact on statistical properties. We studied an extreme case of this trade-off: the statistical validity of an open medical dataset based on the German National Pandemic Cohort Network (NAPKON), which was prepared for publication using a strong anonymization procedure. Descriptive statistics and results of regression analyses were compared before and after anonymization of multiple variants of the original dataset. Despite significant differences in value distributions, the statistical bias was found to be small in all cases. In the regression analyses, the median absolute deviations of the estimated adjusted odds ratios for different sample sizes ranged from 0.01 [minimum = 0, maximum = 0.58] to 0.52 [minimum = 0.25, maximum = 0.91]. Disproportionate impact on the statistical properties of data is a common argument against the use of anonymization. Our analysis demonstrates that anonymization can actually preserve validity of statistical results in relatively low-dimensional data.