Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38021383›Full record

ArticleMedical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran2023

A Scoping Review of Adopted Information Extraction Methods for RCTs.

Azadeh Aletaha, Leila Nemati-Anaraki, AbbasAli Keshtkar, Shahram Sedghi, Abdalsamad Keramatfar, Anna Korolyova

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

6 authors.

Azadeh AletahaDepartment of Medical Library and Information Science, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Leila Nemati-AnarakiDepartment of Medical Library and Information Science, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9436-2533
AbbasAli KeshtkarDepartment of Health Science Educational Development, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences. Tehran, Iran.
Shahram SedghiDepartment of Medical Library and Information Science, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Abdalsamad KeramatfarDepartment of Data Analytics, Scientific Information Database (SID), Tehran, Iran.
Anna KorolyovaComputer Science Laboratory for Mechanics and Engineering Sciences (LIMSI), CNRS, Universit´e Paris-Saclay, F-91405 Orsay, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide the strongest evidence for therapeutic interventions and their effects on groups of subjects. However, the large amount of unstructured information in these trials makes it challenging and time-consuming to make decisions and identify important concepts and valid evidence. This study aims to explore methods for automating or semi-automating information extraction from reports of RCT studies. Methods: We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, ACM Digital Library, and Web of Science to identify relevant articles published between January 1, 2010, and 2022. We focused on published Natural Language Processing (NLP), machine learning, and deep learning methods that automate or semi-automate key elements of information extraction in the context of RCTs. Results: A total of 26 publications were included, which discussed the automatic extraction of key characteristics of RCTs using various PICO frameworks (PIBOSO and PECODR). Among these publications, 14 (53.8%) extracted key characteristics based on PICO, PIBOSO, and PECODR, while 12 (46.1%) discussed information extraction methods in RCT studies. Common approaches mentioned included word/phrase matching, machine learning algorithms such as binary classification using the Naïve Bayes algorithm and powerful BERT network for feature extraction, support vector machine for data classification, conditional random field, non-machine-dependent automation, and machine learning or deep learning approaches. Conclusion: The lack of publicly available software and limited access to existing software makes it difficult to determine the most powerful information extraction system. However, deep learning models like Transformers and BERT language models have shown better performance in natural language processing.

Indexed as

automationInformation extractionNLPRandomized Controlled Trials

Identifiers

PMID38021383
PMCPMC10657257

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.