ArticleStudies in health technology and informatics2017
Formalizing Evidence Type Definitions for Drug-Drug Interaction Studies to Improve Evidence Base Curation.
Article in Studies in health technology and informatics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Linguistic and ontological challenges of multiple domains contributing to transformed health ecosystems.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Testing the face validity and inter-rater agreement of a simple approach to drug-drug interaction evidence assessment.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2020Article
- Collecting data on organizational structures of trauma centers: the CAFE web service.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2020Article
- Enhancing Clinical Data and Clinical Research Data with Biomedical Ontologies - Insights from the Knowledge Representation Perspective.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In this research we aim to demonstrate that an ontology-based system can categorize potential drug-drug interaction (PDDI) evidence items into complex types based on a small set of simple questions. Such a method could increase the transparency and reliability of PDDI evidence evaluation, while also reducing the variations in content and seriousness ratings present in PDDI knowledge bases. We extended the DIDEO ontology with 44 formal evidence type definitions. We then manually annotated the evidence types of 30 evidence items. We tested an RDF/OWL representation of answers to a small number of simple questions about each of these 30 evidence items and showed that automatic inference can determine the detailed evidence types based on this small number of simpler questions. These results show proof-of-concept for a decision support infrastructure that frees the evidence evaluator from mastering relatively complex written evidence type definitions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29295242PMC5765984What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.