An ontology of randomized controlled trials for evidence-based practice: Content specification and evaluation using the competency decomposition method

Journal of Biomedical Informatics

Volumn 37, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 108-119

  Sim, Ida ^a   Olasov, Ben ^a   Carini, Simona ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Clinical trials; Decision support systems; Electronic publishing; Evidence based medicine; Knowledge representation; Ontology; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPETENCE; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; DECOMPOSITION; EVALUATION; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HUMAN; MEDICAL INFORMATION; METHODOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL;

DATABASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS; DATABASES, FACTUAL; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PUBLISHING; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS;

EID: 2342535080     PISSN: 15320464     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2004.03.001     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. EB Medicine Working Group. Evidence-based medicine. A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 1992;268(17):2420-25
2. Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century: National Academy Press; 2001
3. Berlin A, Sorani M, Sim I. Characteristics of Outpatient Clinical Decision Support Systems: A Taxonomic Description. Under review 2004
4. Friedman C., Hripcsak G. Natural language processing and its future in medicine. Acad. Med. 74(8):1999;890-895
5. The Trial Bank Project. Available from: http://rctbank.ucsf.edu/. Accessed February 13, 2003
6. Sim I., Owens D.K., Lavori P.W., Rennels G.D. Electronic trial banks: a complementary method for reporting randomized trials. Med. Decis. Making. 20(4):2000;440-450
7. Sim I., Gorman P., Greenes R., Haynes R., Kaplan B., Lehmann H., et al. Clinical decision support systems for the practice of evidence-based medicine. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 8(6):2001;527-534
8. Fernandez Lopez M. Overview of methodologies for building ontologies. Benjamins V.R. IJCAI-99 Workshop on Ontologies and Problem-Solving Methods; 1999 August 2, 1999. 1999;CEUR Publications, Stockholm, Sweden
9. Sim I., Cummings S.R. A new framework for describing and quantifying the gap between proof and practice. Med. Care. 41(8):2003;874-881
10. Cabana M.D., Rand C.S., Powe N.R., Wu A.W., Wilson M.H., Abboud P.A., et al. Why don't physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement. JAMA. 282(15):1999;1458-1465
11. Cook D.J., Mulrow C.D., Haynes R.B. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann. Intern. Med. 126(5):1997;376-380
12. Sim I., Sanders G.D., McDonald K.M. Evidence-based practice for mere mortals: the role of informatics and health services research. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 17(4):2002;302-308
13. Moher D., Schulz K.F., Altman D.G. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Ann. Intern. Med. 134(8):2001;657-662
14. Clarke M.J., Stewart L.A. Obtaining data from randomised controlled trials: how much do we need for reliable and informative meta-analyses? BMJ. 309(6960):1994;1007-1010
15. Meinert C.L. Beyond CONSORT: need for improved reporting standards for clinical trials. Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials. JAMA. 279(18):1998;1487-1489
16. Pocock S.J., Hughes M.D., Lee R.J. Statistical problems in the reporting of clinical trials. A survey of three medical journals. N. Engl. J. Med. 317(7):1987;426-432
17. Meinert C.L., Tonascia S., Higgins K. Content of reports on clinical trials: a critical review. Control. Clin. Trials. 5(4):1984;328-347
18. CONSORT. Available from: http://www.consort-statement.org/. Accessed February 13, 2003
19. Altman D.G., Schulz K.F., Moher D., Egger M., Davidoff F., Elbourne D., et al. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann. Intern. Med. 134(8):2001;663-694
20. Collaboration C. The Cochrane Library [CDROM]: Update Software; 2002
21. ClinicalTrials.gov. National Institutes of Health. Available from: www.clinicaltrials.gov. Accessed September 16, 2002
22. Current Controlled Trials - Search the metaRegister of Controlled Trials. Current Controlled Trials. Available from: http://controlled-trials.com/mrct/. Accessed December 30, 2003
23. Cancer.gov - Search Clinical Trials. National Cancer Institute. Available from: http://www.nci.nih. gov/search/clinical_trials/. Accessed December 10, 2003
24. Easterbrook P.J. Directory of registries of clinical trials. Stat. Med. 11(3):1992;345-359
25. Tu S, Eriksson H, Gennari J, Shahar Y, Musen M. Ontology-based configuration of problem-solving methods and generation of knowledge-acquisition tools: Application of Protege-II to protocol-based decision support. Technical Report: Knowledge Systems Lab; December 1994. Report No.: KSL-94-22
26. Clinical Trials Object Model. National Cancer Institute. Available from: http://ncicb.nci.nih.gov/content/coreftp/trials/Spore/Spore.html. Accessed December 5, 2003
27. Wyatt J.C., Altman D.G., Heathfield H.A., Pantin C.F. Development of Design-a-Trial, a knowledge-based critiquing system for authors of clinical trial protocols. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. 43(3-4):1994;283-291
28. Tu S.W., Kemper C.A., Lane N.M., Carlson R.W., Musen M.A. A methodology for determining patients' eligibility for clinical trials. Methods Inf. Med. 32(4):1993;317-325
29. Chandrasekaran B., Johnson T. Generic tasks and task structures: history, critique, and new directions. David J.-M., Krivine J.-P., Simmons R. Second-Generation Expert Systems: 1993;232-272 Springer-Verlag, Berlin
30. Gruninger M, Fox M, Methodology for the design and evaluation of ontologies. Department of Industrial Engineering Technical Report: University of Toronto; 1995 April 13
31. Cook D.J., Sackett D.L., Spitzer W.O. Methodologic guidelines for systematic reviews of randomized control trials in health care from the Potsdam Consultation on Meta-Analysis. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 48(1):1995;167-171
32. Sackett D.L., Rosenberg W.M., Gray J.A., Haynes R.B., Richardson W.S. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't [editorial] [see comments]. BMJ. 312(7023):1996;71-72
33. Lindberg D.A., Humphreys B.L., McCray A.T. The unified medical language system. Methods. Inf. Med. 32(4):1993;281-291
34. Oxman A.D., Guyatt G.H. Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 44(11):1991;1271-1278
35. Gibaldi M., Sullivan S. Intention-to-treat analysis in randomized trials: who gets counted. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 37(8):1997;667-672
36. Gottlieb S.S. Dead is dead - artificial definitions are no substitute [comment] [see comments]. Lancet. 349(9053):1997;662-663
37. Moher D., Jadad A.R., Nichol G., Penman M., Tugwell P., Walsh S. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Control. Clin. Trials. 16(1):1995;62-73
38. Karp P, Chaudhri V, Paley S. A Collaborative Environment for Authoring Large Knowledge Bases. J Intell Informat Syst 1998:[in press]
39. Uschold M., Gruninger M. Ontologies: principles, methods and applications. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 11(2):1996;93-136
40. NCI Common Data Elements Dictionary. National Cancer Institute. Available from: http://cii-server5.nci.nih.gov: 8080/pls/cde_public/cde_java.show. Accessed October 3, 2002
41. Chute C.G., Cohn S.P., Campbell K.E., Oliver D.E., Campbell J.R. The content coverage of clinical classifications. For The Computer-Based Patient Record Institute's Work Group on Codes & Structures. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 3(3):1996;224-233
42. Humphreys B.L., McCray A.T., Cheh M.L. Evaluating the coverage of controlled health data terminologies: report on the results of the NLM/AHCPR large scale vocabulary test. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 4(6):1997;484-500
43. Goldberg H., Goldsmith D., Law V., Keck K., Tuttle M., Safran C. An evaluation of UMLS as a controlled terminology for the Problem List Toolkit. Medinfo. 9(Pt 1):1998;609-612
44. Tuttle M.S., Olson N.E., Keck K.D., Cole W.G., Erlbaum M.S., Sherertz D.D., et al. Metaphrase: an aid to the clinical conceptualization and formalization of patient problems in healthcare enterprises. Methods Inf. Med. 37(4-5):1998;373-383
45. Elkin P.L., Tuttle M., Keck K., Campbell K., Atkin G., Chute C.G. The role of compositionality in standardized problem list generation. Medinfo. 9(Pt 1):1998;660-664
46. Musen M.A., Tu S.W., Das A.K., Shahar Y. EON: a component-based approach to automation of protocol-directed therapy. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 3(6):1996;367-388
47. Re-engineering the Clinical Research Enterprise. National Institutes of Health. Available from: http://nihroadmap.nih.gov/clinicalresearch/index.asp. Accessed December 16, 2003
48. Health Level 7: Regulated Clinical Research Information Management. Health Level 7. Available from: http://www.hl7.org/Special/committees/rcrim/ rcrim.htm. Accessed October 3, 2002