Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37943502›Full record

ReviewEuro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin2023

Overcoming the challenges of using automated technologies for public health evidence synthesis.

Lucy Hocking, Sarah Parkinson, Avery Adams, Emmanuel Molding Nielsen, Cecilia Ang, Helena de Carvalho Gomes

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Lucy HockingRAND Europe, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Sarah ParkinsonRAND Europe, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Avery AdamsRAND Europe, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Emmanuel Molding NielsenRAND Europe, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Cecilia AngRAND Europe, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Helena de Carvalho GomesEuropean Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many organisations struggle to keep pace with public health evidence due to the volume of published literature and length of time it takes to conduct literature reviews. New technologies that help automate parts of the evidence synthesis process can help conduct reviews more quickly and efficiently to better provide up-to-date evidence for public health decision making. To date, automated approaches have seldom been used in public health due to significant barriers to their adoption. In this Perspective, we reflect on the findings of a study exploring experiences of adopting automated technologies to conduct evidence reviews within the public health sector. The study, funded by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, consisted of a literature review and qualitative data collection from public health organisations and researchers in the field. We specifically focus on outlining the challenges associated with the adoption of automated approaches and potential solutions and actions that can be taken to mitigate these. We explore these in relation to actions that can be taken by tool developers (e.g. improving tool performance and transparency), public health organisations (e.g. developing staff skills, encouraging collaboration) and funding bodies/the wider research system (e.g. researchers, funding bodies, academic publishers and scholarly journals).

Indexed as

Public HealthData CollectionHumansartificial intelligenceAutomationevidence synthesismachine learningpublic healthsystematic reviewtechnology

Identifiers

PMID37943502
PMCPMC10636742

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.