ArticleBMJ health & care informatics2025
Leveraging real-world data for continuous evaluation of computational clinical practice guidelines.
Article in BMJ health & care informatics, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThere is a bidirectional interaction between clinical practice guidelines and clinical care, with each informing the other. Structural signalling of trends in guideline adherence in clinical practice is essential for advanced updates. Recent advances in computable care guidelines allow automated evaluation using real-world registry data. Here, we assess the feasibility by evaluating adherence to Dutch endometrial cancer (EC) guidelines.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study uses real-world data of EC patients from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR) between January 2010 and May 2022. The Dutch guideline for EC was parsed into clinical decision trees (CDTs). Primary outcome was guideline adherence for multiple (sub)populations, with secondary outcomes encompassing adherence trends, recommendation implementation pace, non-adherent treatment strategies and impact of additional non-guideline-based patient and tumour characteristics on adherence.
resultsThe Dutch EC guideline was parsed into 10 CDTs, revealing 22 patient and disease characteristics and 46 interventions. NCR data were mapped to CDT data items. Four CDTs were successfully populated with NCR data, and 21 602 cases were assessed. Adherence levels were computed, which showed a mean adherence of 82.7% (range 44-100%). Three statistically significant trends in adherence were identified: two increasing trends in the 'non-adherent' compared with the 'adherent' group, and one decreasing trend. DISCUSSION: This study introduces a novel framework for continuously evaluating (non-)adherence to cancer guidelines. Future efforts should focus on the inclusion of health outcome measurements.
conclusionThrough the integration of real-world data with a computer-interpretable guideline, we effectively calculated various facets of adherence to guidelines for EC.
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.