Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23304419›Full record

ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2012

Improving the accuracy of therapy descriptions in clinical trials using a bottom-up approach.

Maurine Tong, Ricky K Taira

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Evaluating a Novel Summary Visualization for Clinical Trial Reports: A Usability Study.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2016
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Maurine TongUniversity of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Ricky K Taira

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Randomized clinical trial (RCT) reports commonly have complicated therapy descriptions that are written in free-text. Drug therapy is difficult to describe due to the dynamic nature of how protocols change and the many ways drugs can be administered. Details regarding protocol changes and drug administration must be explained clearly for reproducibility and reliability. A process model supplemented with concept ontologies can clarify the dynamics of how therapies change and make knowledge more explicit. We demonstrated the process to develop a representation model to reveal specific context concerning drug therapies within clinical trial report literature. A PubMed search was conducted to identify RCTs on non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) pertaining to epithelial growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations. Twenty-seven clinical trials were used to develop the model using a bottom-up approach. This representation describes drug dosage, administration details, and drug cycles within different experimental arms and control groups. We then presented preliminary evaluation of the clarity and understandability of the representation.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsCarcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungGenes, erbB-1HumansLung NeoplasmsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAntineoplastic Agents

Identifiers

PMID23304419
PMCPMC3540541

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.