(2) Backgrounds and locations: Research groups were based predominantly in North America (31/60, 52%) and in the European Union (22/60, 37%). The remaining articles (3/60, 5%) were equivocal.

When both terms were used (41/60, 68%), their meanings divided the authors into two equal groups (19/60, 32%, each) with opposed views. (1) Terminology: Definitions of the terms de-identification and anonymization were provided in less than half of the articles (29/60, 48%). A comprehensive review is needed to better understand the domain, its capabilities, its challenges, and the ratio of risk between the data subjects’ privacy on one side, and the benefit of scientific advances on the other.Īfter searching 7972 records that matched at least one search term, 135 publications were screened and 60 full-text articles were included. However, it is difficult to find a consensus on the definitions of the concepts or on the reliability of the techniques used to apply them. De-identification and anonymization are the two most common terms used to refer to the technical approaches that protect privacy and facilitate the secondary use of health data. Preserving patients’ privacy is crucial in this context. National and international initiatives, such as the Global Open Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (GO FAIR) initiative, are supporting this approach in different ways (eg, making the sharing of research data mandatory or improving the legal and ethical frameworks).

The secondary use of health data is central to biomedical research in the era of data science and precision medicine.

Anonymizer universal review