ArticleNPJ digital medicine2025
High-precision information retrieval for rapid clinical guideline updates.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Distinct patterns in study techniques and intrinsic challenges in nursing students' self-directed learning: an exploratory, comparative qualitative study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Tumor Niche Influences the Activity and Delivery of Anticancer Drugs: Pharmacology Meets Chemistry.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Delays in translating new medical evidence into clinical practice hinder patient access to the best available treatments. Our data reveals an average delay of nine years from the initiation of human research to its adoption in clinical guidelines, with 1.7-3.0 years lost between trial publication and guideline updates. A substantial part of these delays stems from slow, manual processes in updating clinical guidelines, which rely on time-intensive evidence synthesis workflows. The Next Generation Evidence (NGE) system addresses this challenge by harnessing state-of-the-art biomedical Natural Language Processing (NLP) methods. This novel system integrates diverse evidence sources, such as clinical trial reports and digital guidelines, enabling automated, data-driven analyses of the time it takes for research findings to inform clinical practice. Moreover, the NGE system provides precision-focused literature search filters tailored specifically for guideline maintenance. In benchmarking against two German oncology guidelines, these filters demonstrate exceptional precision in identifying pivotal publications for guideline updates.
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.