Abstract
Abstract
Background
Evidence-based medicine propagates that medical/clinical decisions are made by taking into account high-quality evidence, most notably in the form of randomized clinical trials. Evidence-based decision-making requires aggregating the evidence available in multiple trials to reach –by means of systematic reviews– a conclusive recommendation on which treatment is best suited for a given patient population. However, it is challenging to produce systematic reviews to keep up with the ever-growing number of published clinical trials. Therefore, new computational approaches are necessary to support the creation of systematic reviews that include the most up-to-date evidence.We propose a method to synthesize the evidence available in clinical trials in an ad-hoc and on-demand manner by automatically arranging such evidence in the form of a hierarchical argument that recommends a therapy as being superior to some other therapy along a number of key dimensions corresponding to the clinical endpoints of interest. The method has also been implemented as a web tool that allows users to explore the effects of excluding different points of evidence, and indicating relative preferences on the endpoints.
Results
Through two use cases, our method was shown to be able to generate conclusions similar to the ones of published systematic reviews. To evaluate our method implemented as a web tool, we carried out a survey and usability analysis with medical professionals. The results show that the tool was perceived as being valuable, acknowledging its potential to inform clinical decision-making and to complement the information from existing medical guidelines.
Conclusions
The method presented is a simple but yet effective argumentation-based method that contributes to support the synthesis of clinical trial evidence. A current limitation of the method is that it relies on a manually populated knowledge base. This problem could be alleviated by deploying natural language processing methods to extract the relevant information from publications.
Funder
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Universität Bielefeld
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Computer Networks and Communications,Health Informatics,Computer Science Applications,Information Systems
Reference31 articles.
1. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WMC, Gray JAM, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ. 1996; 312(7023):71–2. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71.
2. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brozek J, Alonso-Coello P, et al.GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence—imprecision. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64(12):1283–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.01.012.
3. Cochrane AL. 1931-1971: a critical review, with particular reference to the medical profession. Medicines Year. 2000; 1979:1.
4. Glasspool D, Fox J, Oettinger A, Smith-Spark J. Argumentation in decision support for medical care planning for patients and clinicians. In: AAAI Spring Symposium: Argumentation for Consumers of Healthcare. Stanford, California: AAAI: 2006. p. 58–63.
5. Fox J, Glasspool D, Grecu D, Modgil S, South M, Patkar V. Argumentation-based inference and decision making–a medical perspective. IEEE Intell Syst. 2007; 22(6):34–41. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2007.102.
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献