Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27141516›Full record

ArticleEGEMS (Washington, DC)2016

Consensus Statement on Electronic Health Predictive Analytics: A Guiding Framework to Address Challenges.

Ruben Amarasingham, Anne-Marie J Audet, David W Bates, I Glenn Cohen, Martin Entwistle, G J Escobar, Vincent Liu, Lynn Etheredge, Bernard Lo, Lucila Ohno-Machado and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EGEMS (Washington, DC), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing 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

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Use of Big Data and Ethical Issues for Populations With Substance Use Disorder.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Prediction tool Development and Implementation in pharmacy praCTice (PreDICT) proposed guidance.American journal of health-system pharmacy : AJHP : official journal of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists · 2023
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Transformation of the Doctor-Patient Relationship: Big Data, Accountable Care, and Predictive Health Analytics.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2019
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

17 authors.

Ruben AmarasinghamPCCI.
Anne-Marie J AudetThe Commonwealth Fund.
David W BatesBrigham and Women's Hospital.
I Glenn CohenHarvard Law School.
Martin EntwistlePalo Alto Medical Foundation.
G J EscobarPCCI.
Vincent LiuKaiser Permanente.
Lynn EtheredgePCCI.
Bernard LoThe Greenwall Foundation.
Lucila Ohno-MachadoUniversity of California, San Diego.
Sudha RamManagement Information Systems, University of Arizona.
Suchi SariaJohns Hopkins University.
Lisa M SchillingUniversity of Colorado, School of Medicine.
Anand ShahiPCCI.
Walter F StewartSutter Health.
Ewout W SteyerbergErasmus Medical Center.
Bin XiePCCI.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextThe recent explosion in available electronic health record (EHR) data is motivating a rapid expansion of electronic health care predictive analytic (e-HPA) applications, defined as the use of electronic algorithms that forecast clinical events in real time with the intent to improve patient outcomes and reduce costs. There is an urgent need for a systematic framework to guide the development and application of e-HPA to ensure that the field develops in a scientifically sound, ethical, and efficient manner.

objectivesBuilding upon earlier frameworks of model development and utilization, we identify the emerging opportunities and challenges of e-HPA, propose a framework that enables us to realize these opportunities, address these challenges, and motivate e-HPA stakeholders to both adopt and continuously refine the framework as the applications of e-HPA emerge.

methodsTo achieve these objectives, 17 experts with diverse expertise including methodology, ethics, legal, regulation, and health care delivery systems were assembled to identify emerging opportunities and challenges of e-HPA and to propose a framework to guide the development and application of e-HPA.

findingsThe framework proposed by the panel includes three key domains where e-HPA differs qualitatively from earlier generations of models and algorithms (Data Barriers, Transparency, and ETHICS) and areas where current frameworks are insufficient to address the emerging opportunities and challenges of e-HPA (Regulation and Certification; and Education and Training). The following list of recommendations summarizes the key points of the framework: Data Barriers: Establish mechanisms within the scientific community to support data sharing for predictive model development and testing.Transparency: Set standards around e-HPA validation based on principles of scientific transparency and reproducibility. ETHICS: Develop both individual-centered and society-centered risk-benefit approaches to evaluate e-HPA.Regulation and Certification: Construct a self-regulation and certification framework within e-HPA.Education and Training: Make significant changes to medical, nursing, and paraprofessional curricula by including training for understanding, evaluating, and utilizing predictive models.

Indexed as

big dataClinical decision support systemselectronic predictive analyticsEthicsHealth Information TechnologyInformaticspredictive models

Identifiers

PMID27141516
PMCPMC4837887

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.