Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31141422›Full record

ArticleJCO clinical cancer informatics2019

Transformation of the National Breast Cancer Guideline Into Data-Driven Clinical Decision Trees.

Mathijs P Hendriks, Xander A A M Verbeek, Thijs van Vegchel, Maurice J C van der Sangen, Luc J A Strobbe, Jos W S Merkus, Harmien M Zonderland, Carolien H Smorenburg, Agnes Jager, Sabine Siesling

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Data-driven decision making in patient management: a systematic review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Informed clinical decisions by outfoxing human FOXN1 variants.The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Using guideline-based clinical decision support in oncological multidisciplinary team meetings: A prospective, multicenter concordance study.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2022
    Observational
  12. Conversion of a colorectal cancer guideline into clinical decision trees with assessment of validity.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. 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

10 authors.

Mathijs P HendriksNorthwest Clinics, Alkmaar, the Netherlands.
Xander A A M VerbeekNetherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Thijs van VegchelNetherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Maurice J C van der SangenCatharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Luc J A StrobbeCanisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Jos W S MerkusHaga Teaching Hospital, The Hague, the Netherlands.
Harmien M ZonderlandUniversity of Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Carolien H SmorenburgNetherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Agnes JagerErasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Sabine Siesling *Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization, Utrecht, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe essence of guideline recommendations often is intertwined in large texts. This impedes clinical implementation and evaluation and delays timely modular revisions needed to deal with an ever-growing amount of knowledge and application of personalized medicine. The aim of this project was to model guideline recommendations as data-driven clinical decision trees (CDTs) that are clinically interpretable and suitable for implementation in decision support systems.

methodsAll recommendations of the Dutch national breast cancer guideline for nonmetastatic breast cancer were translated into CDTs. CDTs were constructed by nodes, branches, and leaves that represent data items (patient and tumor characteristics [eg, T stage]), data item values (eg, T2 or less), and recommendations (eg, chemotherapy), respectively. For all data items, source of origin was identified (eg, pathology), and where applicable, data item values were defined on the basis of existing classification and coding systems (eg, TNM, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine). All unique routes through all CDTs were counted to measure the degree of data-based personalization of recommendations.

resultsIn total, 60 CDTs were necessary to cover the whole guideline and were driven by 114 data items. Data items originated from pathology (49%), radiology (27%), clinical (12%), and multidisciplinary team (12%) reports. Of all data items, 101 (89%) could be classified by existing classification and coding systems. All 60 CDTs could be integrated in an interactive decision support app that contained 376 unique patient subpopulations.

conclusionBy defining data items unambiguously and unequivocally and coding them to an international coding system, it was possible to present a complex guideline as systematically constructed modular data-driven CDTs that are clinically interpretable and accessible in a decision support app.

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalDecision TreesPractice Guidelines as TopicBreast NeoplasmsClinical Decision-MakingDatabases, FactualDiagnostic ImagingFemaleHumansNeoplasm GradingNeoplasm StagingPrecision MedicineSoftwareWeb Browser

Identifiers

PMID31141422
PMCPMC7101250

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.