Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37668272›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of medical quality : the official journal of the American College of Medical Quality

An Evaluation Framework for a Novel Process to Codevelop Written and Computable Guidelines.

Amrita Tailor, Susan J Robinson, Dyann M Matson-Koffman, Maria Michaels, Matthew M Burton, Ira M Lubin, Workgroup on Evaluation of the Integrated Process

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of medical quality : the official journal of the American College of Medical Quality. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. An Evaluation Framework for a Novel Process to Codevelop Written and Computable Guidelines.American journal of medical quality : the official journal of the American College of Medical Quality
    Article
  5. Adapted Kaizen: Multi-Organizational Complex Process Redesign for Adapting Clinical Guidelines for the Digital Age.American journal of medical quality : the official journal of the American College of Medical Quality
    Article
  6. Adapting Clinical Guidelines for the Digital Age: Summary of a Holistic and Multidisciplinary Approach.American journal of medical quality : the official journal of the American College of Medical Quality
    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.

Amrita TailorCenters for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Susan J RobinsonCenters for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Dyann M Matson-KoffmanCenters for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Maria MichaelsCenters for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Matthew M BurtonHolistic Healthcare Solutions, LLC.
Ira M LubinCenters for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Workgroup on Evaluation of the Integrated Process

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) support individual and population health by translating new, evidence-based knowledge into recommendations for health practice. CPGs can be provided as computable, machine-readable guidelines that support the translation of recommendations into shareable, interoperable clinical decision support and other digital tools (eg, quality measures, case reports, care plans). Interdisciplinary collaboration among guideline developers and health information technology experts can facilitate the translation of written guidelines into computable ones. The benefits of interdisciplinary work include a focus on the needs of end-users who apply guidelines in practice through clinic decision support systems as part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) Adapting Clinical Guidelines for the Digital Age (ACG) initiative, a group of interdisciplinary experts proposed a process to facilitate the codevelopment of written and computable CPGs, referred to as the "integrated process (IP)."1 This paper presents a framework for evaluating the IP based on a combination of vetted evaluation models and expert opinions. This framework combines 3 types of evaluations: process, product, and outcomes. These evaluations assess the value of interdisciplinary expert collaboration in carrying out the IP, the quality, usefulness, timeliness, and acceptance of the guideline, and the guideline's health impact, respectively. A case study is presented that illustrates application of the framework.

Identifiers

PMID37668272
PMCPMC10476596

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.