Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33448937›Full record

ArticleJMIR research protocols2021

A Bayesian Network Decision Support Tool for Low Back Pain Using a RAND Appropriateness Procedure: Proposal and Internal Pilot Study.

Adele Hill, Christopher H Joyner, Chloe Keith-Jopp, Barbaros Yet, Ceren Tuncer Sakar, William Marsh, Dylan Morrissey

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR research protocols, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Adele HillSport and Exercise Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6561-5036
Christopher H JoynerElectronics, Engineering and Computer Science, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3950-3935
Chloe Keith-JoppSport and Exercise Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2452-3562
Barbaros YetGraduate School of Informatics, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4058-2677
Ceren Tuncer SakarDepartment of Industrial Engineering, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6269-4234
William MarshElectronics, Engineering and Computer Science, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0212-6363
Dylan MorrisseySport and Exercise Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7045-3644
Queen Mary University of London · GBHacettepe University · TRMiddle East Technical University · TR

Funding

Department of Health CAT SCL-2013-04-003
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLow back pain (LBP) is an increasingly burdensome condition for patients and health professionals alike, with consistent demonstration of increasing persistent pain and disability. Previous decision support tools for LBP management have focused on a subset of factors owing to time constraints and ease of use for the clinician. With the explosion of interest in machine learning tools and the commitment from Western governments to introduce this technology, there are opportunities to develop intelligent decision support tools. We will do this for LBP using a Bayesian network, which will entail constructing a clinical reasoning model elicited from experts.

objectiveThis paper proposes a method for conducting a modified RAND appropriateness procedure to elicit the knowledge required to construct a Bayesian network from a group of domain experts in LBP, and reports the lessons learned from the internal pilot of the procedure.

methodsWe propose to recruit expert clinicians with a special interest in LBP from across a range of medical specialties, such as orthopedics, rheumatology, and sports medicine. The procedure will consist of four stages. Stage 1 is an online elicitation of variables to be considered by the model, followed by a face-to-face workshop. Stage 2 is an online elicitation of the structure of the model, followed by a face-to-face workshop. Stage 3 consists of an online phase to elicit probabilities to populate the Bayesian network. Stage 4 is a rudimentary validation of the Bayesian network.

resultsEthical approval has been obtained from the Research Ethics Committee at Queen Mary University of London. An internal pilot of the procedure has been run with clinical colleagues from the research team. This showed that an alternating process of three remote activities and two in-person meetings was required to complete the elicitation without overburdening participants. Lessons learned have included the need for a bespoke online elicitation tool to run between face-to-face meetings and for careful operational definition of descriptive terms, even if widely clinically used. Further, tools are required to remotely deliver training about self-identification of various forms of cognitive bias and explain the underlying principles of a Bayesian network. The use of the internal pilot was recognized as being a methodological necessity.

conclusionsWe have proposed a method to construct Bayesian networks that are representative of expert clinical reasoning for a musculoskeletal condition in this case. We have tested the method with an internal pilot to refine the process prior to deployment, which indicates the process can be successful. The internal pilot has also revealed the software support requirements for the elicitation process to model clinical reasoning for a range of conditions. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/21804.

Indexed as

back painBayesian methodsconsensusdecision making

Identifiers

PMID33448937
PMCPMC7846442
OpenAlexW3099682961

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.