ArticlePloS one2024
Design of a bi-directional methodology for automated assessment of compliance to continuous application of clinical guidelines, and its evaluation in the type 2 diabetes domain.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We introduce a new approach for automated guideline-based-care quality assessment, the bidirectional knowledge-based assessment of compliance (BiKBAC) method, and the DiscovErr system, which implements it. Our methodology compares the guideline's Asbru-based formal representation, including its intentions, with the longitudinal medical record, using a top-down and bottom-up approach. Partial matches are resolved using fuzzy temporal logic. The system was evaluated in the type 2 Diabetes management domain, comparing it to three expert clinicians, including two diabetes experts. The system and the experts commented on the management of 10 patients, randomly selected from 2,000 diabetes patients. On average, each record spanned 5.23 years; the data included 1,584 medical transactions. The system provided 279 comments. The experts made 181 different unique comments. The completeness (recall) of the system was 91% when the gold standard was comments made by at least two of the three experts, and 98%, compared to comments made by all three experts. The experts also assessed all of the 114 medication-therapy-related comments, and a random 35% of the 165 tests-and-monitoring-related comments. The system's correctness (precision) was 81%, compared to comments judged as correct by both diabetes experts, and 91%, compared to comments judged as correct by one diabetes expert and at least as partially correct by the other. 89% of the comments were judged as important by both diabetes experts, 8% were judged as important by one expert, and 3% were judged as less important by both experts. Adding the validated system comments to the experts' comments, the completeness scores of the experts were 75%, 60%, and 55%; the expert correctness scores were respectively 99%, 91%, and 88%. Thus, the system could be ranked first in completeness and second in correctness. We conclude that systems such as DiscovErr can effectively assess the quality of continuous guideline-based care.
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.