Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39819848›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025

A Digital Tool for Clinical Evidence-Driven Guideline Development by Studying Properties of Trial Eligible and Ineligible Populations: Development and Usability Study.

Shahzad Mumtaz, Megan McMinn, Christian Cole, Chuang Gao, Christopher Hall, Magalie Guignard-Duff, Huayi Huang, David A McAllister, Daniel R Morales, Emily Jefferson and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

11 authors.

Shahzad MumtazHealth Informatics Centre, School of Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2606-2405
Megan McMinnAdvanced Care Research Centre, Usher Institute, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8398-2633
Christian ColeHealth Informatics Centre, School of Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2560-2484
Chuang GaoHealth Informatics Centre, School of Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6456-0301
Christopher HallHealth Informatics Centre, School of Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1368-4619
Magalie Guignard-DuffHealth Informatics Centre, School of Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0008-3109-2098
Huayi HuangAdvanced Care Research Centre, Usher Institute, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1166-485X
David A McAllisterSchool of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3550-1764
Daniel R MoralesDivision of Population Health and Genomics, School of Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0063-8069
Emily JeffersonHealth Informatics Centre, School of Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2992-7582
Bruce GuthrieAdvanced Care Research Centre, Usher Institute, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4191-4880

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical guideline development preferentially relies on evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). RCTs are gold-standard methods to evaluate the efficacy of treatments with the highest internal validity but limited external validity, in the sense that their findings may not always be applicable to or generalizable to clinical populations or population characteristics. The external validity of RCTs for the clinical population is constrained by the lack of tailored epidemiological data analysis designed for this purpose due to data governance, consistency of disease or condition definitions, and reduplicated effort in analysis code.

objectiveThis study aims to develop a digital tool that characterizes the overall population and differences between clinical trial eligible and ineligible populations from the clinical populations of a disease or condition regarding demography (eg, age, gender, ethnicity), comorbidity, coprescription, hospitalization, and mortality. Currently, the process is complex, onerous, and time-consuming, whereas a real-time tool may be used to rapidly inform a guideline developer's judgment about the applicability of evidence.

methodsThe National Institute for Health and Care Excellence-particularly the gout guideline development group-and the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network guideline developers were consulted to gather their requirements and evidential data needs when developing guidelines. An R Shiny (R Foundation for Statistical Computing) tool was designed and developed using electronic primary health care data linked with hospitalization and mortality data built upon an optimized data architecture. Disclosure control mechanisms were built into the tool to ensure data confidentiality. The tool was deployed within a Trusted Research Environment, allowing only trusted preapproved researchers to conduct analysis.

resultsThe tool supports 128 chronic health conditions as index conditions and 161 conditions as comorbidities (33 in addition to the 128 index conditions). It enables 2 types of analyses via the graphic interface: overall population and stratified by user-defined eligibility criteria. The analyses produce an overview of statistical tables (eg, age, gender) of the index condition population and, within the overview groupings, produce details on, for example, electronic frailty index, comorbidities, and coprescriptions. The disclosure control mechanism is integral to the tool, limiting tabular counts to meet local governance needs. An exemplary result for gout as an index condition is presented to demonstrate the tool's functionality. Guideline developers from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network provided positive feedback on the tool.

conclusionsThe tool is a proof-of-concept, and the user feedback has demonstrated that this is a step toward computer-interpretable guideline development. Using the digital tool can potentially improve evidence-driven guideline development through the availability of real-world data in real time.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based MedicinePractice Guidelines as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicFemaleHumansMaleageavailabilityclinical practiceclinical practice guidelinedevelopmentdigital toolefficacyepidemiologicalepidemiological dataepidemiologyethnicityfeedbackgendergoutmortalitymultimorbidityNational Institute for Health and Care ExcellenceScottish Intercollegiate Guidelines NetworktoolTrusted Research Environmentvalidity

Identifiers

PMID39819848
PMCPMC11783027

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.