Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32187632›Full record

ArticleApplied clinical informatics2020

Mapping Patient Data to Colorectal Cancer Clinical Algorithms for Personalized Guideline-Based Treatment.

Matthias Becker, Britta Böckmann, Karl-Heinz Jöckel, Martin Stuschke, Andreas Paul, Stefan Kasper, Isabel Virchow

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors.

Matthias BeckerDepartment of Computer Science, University of Applied Sciences and Arts, Dortmund, Germany.
Britta BöckmannDepartment of Computer Science, University of Applied Sciences and Arts, Dortmund, Germany.
Karl-Heinz JöckelInstitute of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
Martin StuschkeRadiation and Tumor Clinic, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
Andreas PaulSurgical Clinic, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
Stefan KasperWest German Cancer Center, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
Isabel VirchowWest German Cancer Center, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundColorectal cancer is the most commonly occurring cancer in Germany, and the second and third most commonly diagnosed cancer in women and men, respectively. In this context, evidence-based guidelines positively impact the quality of treatment processes for cancer patients. However, evidence of their impact on real-world patient care remains unclear. To ensure the success of clinical guidelines, a fast and clear provision of knowledge at the point of care is essential.

objectivesThe objectives of this study are to model machine-readable clinical algorithms for colon carcinoma and rectal carcinoma annotated by Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) based on clinical guidelines and the development of an open-source workflow system for mapping clinical algorithms with patient-specific information to identify patient's position on the treatment algorithm for guideline-based therapy recommendations.

methodsThis study qualitatively assesses the therapy decision of clinical algorithms as part of a clinical pathway. The solution uses rule-based clinical algorithms, which were developed based on the corresponding guidelines. These algorithms are executed on a newly developed open-source workflow system and are visualized at the point of care. The aim of this approach is to create clinical algorithms based on an established business process standard, the Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN), which is annotated by UMLS terminologies. The gold standard for the validation process was set by manual extraction of clinical datasets from 86 rectal cancer patients and 89 colon cancer patients.

resultsUsing this approach, the algorithm achieved a precision value of 87.64% for colon cancer and 84.70% for rectal cancer with recall values of 87.64 and 83.72%, respectively.

conclusionThe results indicate that the automatic positioning of a patient on the decision pathway is possible with tumor stages that have a less complex clinical algorithm with fewer decision points reaching a higher accuracy than complex stages.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsMedical InformaticsPractice Guidelines as TopicPrecision MedicineColorectal NeoplasmsHumansNatural Language ProcessingNeoplasm Staging

Identifiers

PMID32187632
PMCPMC7080556

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.