ArticleSystematic reviews2022
How are ontologies implemented to represent clinical practice guidelines in clinical decision support systems: protocol for a systematic review.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mobile health management among end stage renal disease patients: a scoping review.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- How are ontologies implemented to represent clinical practice guidelines in clinical decision support systems: protocol for a systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical practice guidelines are statements which are based on the best available evidence, and their goal is to improve the quality of patient care. Integrating clinical practice guidelines into computer systems can help physicians reduce medical errors and help them to have the best possible practice. Guideline-based clinical decision support systems play a significant role in supporting physicians in their decisions. Meantime, system errors are the most critical concerns in designing decision support systems that can affect their performance and efficacy. A well-developed ontology can be helpful in this matter. The proposed systematic review will specify the methods, components, language of rules, and evaluation methods of current ontology-driven guideline-based clinical decision support systems.
methodsThis review will identify literature through searching MEDLINE (via Ovid), PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, ScienceDirect, IEEEXplore, and ACM Digital Library. Gray literature, reference lists, and citing articles of the included studies will be searched. The quality of the included studies will be assessed by the mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT-version 2018). At least two independent reviewers will perform the screening, quality assessment, and data extraction. A third reviewer will resolve any disagreements. Proper data analysis will be performed based on the type of system and ontology engineering evaluation data. DISCUSSION: The study will provide evidence regarding applying ontologies in guideline-based clinical decision support systems. The findings of this systematic review will be a guide for decision support system designers and developers, technologists, system providers, policymakers, and stakeholders. Ontology builders can use the information in this review to build well-structured ontologies for personalized medicine. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018106501.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.