SynthesisJournal of medical systems2025
Requirements for Manual Knowledge Acquisition Tools: Systematic Literature Review and Expert Panel Consensus.
Synthesis in Journal of medical systems, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Knowledge acquisition tools facilitate the creation and maintenance of decision support content, but thus far there is little formal investigation of the requirements and desiderata for such tools. This leads to researchers re-inventing the wheel when building knowledge acquisition tools. This study aims to draw up a requirements list for manual knowledge acquisition tools. A systematic review of the literature combined with the opinion of experts on the research team was used to write the initial requirements list. This requirements list was presented to a group of experts and revised according to their feedback. Embase, MEDLINE, IEEE, and ACM were searched, leading to a total of 1628 records. After screening, 199 records were sought for retrieval and 3 studies were included in the review. The initial requirements list consisted of 24 requirements and 15 sub-requirements, covering multiple aspects of knowledge acquisition tools. The expert consensus sessions resulted in 13 new requirements and 4 new sub-requirements, but no changes to the major categories. The final requirements list contained 37 requirements and 21 sub-requirements, divided over 4 categories. This study has shown that much is still unknown about requirements for KA tools , making it complex for developers to design effective and efficient tools. While our results are preliminary, they might prove to be a valuable starting point for developers and researchers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41254425What 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.