Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34722102›Full record

ReviewHealth and technology2021

Literature-based discovery approaches for evidence-based healthcare: a systematic review.

Sudha Cheerkoot-Jalim, Kavi Kumar Khedo

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Health and technology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

2 authors.

Sudha Cheerkoot-JalimDepartment of Information and Communication Technologies, University of Mauritius, Reduit, Mauritius.ORCID 0000-0002-2943-1272
Kavi Kumar KhedoDepartment of Digital Technologies, University of Mauritius, Reduit, Mauritius.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeLiterature-Based Discovery (LBD) is a text mining technique used to generate novel hypotheses from vast amounts of literature sources, by identifying links between concepts from disparate sources. One of the main areas where it has been predominantly applied is the healthcare domain, whereby promising results, in the form of novel hypotheses, have been reported. The purpose of this work was to conduct a systematic literature review of recent publications on LBD in the healthcare domain in order to assess the trends in the approaches used and to identify issues and challenges for such systems.

methodsThe review was conducted following the principles of the Kitchenham method. The selected studies have been scrutinized and the derived findings have been reported following the PRISMA guidelines.

resultsThe review results reveal useful information regarding the application areas, the data sources considered, the approaches used, the performance in terms of accuracy and reliability and future research challenges. The results of this review will be beneficial to LBD researchers and other stakeholders in the healthcare domain, by providing them with useful insights on the approaches to adopt, data sources to consider, evaluation model to use and challenges to reflect on.

conclusionThe synthesis of the results of this work has shed light on recent issues and challenges that drive new LBD models and provides avenues for their application in other diverse areas in the healthcare domain. To the best of our knowledge, no such recent review has been conducted.

Indexed as

Evidence-based healthcareKnowledge translationLiterature-based discoverySystematic review

Identifiers

PMID34722102
PMCPMC8542914

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.