Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30730766›Full record

ReviewJCO clinical cancer informatics2019

Decision Support Systems in Oncology.

Seán Walsh, Evelyn E C de Jong, Janna E van Timmeren, Abdalla Ibrahim, Inge Compter, Jurgen Peerlings, Sebastian Sanduleanu, Turkey Refaee, Simon Keek, Ruben T H M Larue and 6 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JCO clinical cancer informatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 65 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
65citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
14.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

65 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 159 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

5 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

16 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Seán WalshMaastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Evelyn E C de JongMaastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Janna E van TimmerenMaastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Abdalla IbrahimMaastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Inge CompterMaastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Jurgen PeerlingsMaastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Sebastian SanduleanuMaastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Turkey RefaeeMaastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Simon KeekMaastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Ruben T H M LarueMaastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Yvonka van WijkMaastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Aniek J G EvenMaastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Arthur JochemsMaastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Mohamed S BarakatMaastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Ralph T H LeijenaarMaastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Philippe LambinMaastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Maastricht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Precision medicine is the future of health care: please watch the animation at https://vimeo.com/241154708 . As a technology-intensive and -dependent medical discipline, oncology will be at the vanguard of this impending change. However, to bring about precision medicine, a fundamental conundrum must be solved: Human cognitive capacity, typically constrained to five variables for decision making in the context of the increasing number of available biomarkers and therapeutic options, is a limiting factor to the realization of precision medicine. Given this level of complexity and the restriction of human decision making, current methods are untenable. A solution to this challenge is multifactorial decision support systems (DSSs), continuously learning artificial intelligence platforms that integrate all available data-clinical, imaging, biologic, genetic, cost-to produce validated predictive models. DSSs compare the personalized probable outcomes-toxicity, tumor control, quality of life, cost effectiveness-of various care pathway decisions to ensure optimal efficacy and economy. DSSs can be integrated into the workflows both strategically (at the multidisciplinary tumor board level to support treatment choice, eg, surgery or radiotherapy) and tactically (at the specialist level to support treatment technique, eg, prostate spacer or not). In some countries, the reimbursement of certain treatments, such as proton therapy, is already conditional on the basis that a DSS is used. DSSs have many stakeholders-clinicians, medical directors, medical insurers, patient advocacy groups-and are a natural consequence of big data in health care. Here, we provide an overview of DSSs, their challenges, opportunities, and capacity to improve clinical decision making, with an emphasis on the utility in oncology.

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalAlgorithmsBiomarkers, TumorCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansNeoplasmsPatient-Centered CarePatient SelectionPrecision MedicineQuality of LifeSoftwareBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID30730766
PMCPMC6873918
OpenAlexW2914531051

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.