author_facet Varada, Sowmya
Lacson, Ronilda
Raja, Ali S
Ip, Ivan K
Schneider, Louise
Osterbur, David
Bain, Paul
Vetrano, Nicole
Cellini, Jacqueline
Mita, Carol
Coletti, Margaret
Whelan, Julia
Khorasani, Ramin
Varada, Sowmya
Lacson, Ronilda
Raja, Ali S
Ip, Ivan K
Schneider, Louise
Osterbur, David
Bain, Paul
Vetrano, Nicole
Cellini, Jacqueline
Mita, Carol
Coletti, Margaret
Whelan, Julia
Khorasani, Ramin
author Varada, Sowmya
Lacson, Ronilda
Raja, Ali S
Ip, Ivan K
Schneider, Louise
Osterbur, David
Bain, Paul
Vetrano, Nicole
Cellini, Jacqueline
Mita, Carol
Coletti, Margaret
Whelan, Julia
Khorasani, Ramin
spellingShingle Varada, Sowmya
Lacson, Ronilda
Raja, Ali S
Ip, Ivan K
Schneider, Louise
Osterbur, David
Bain, Paul
Vetrano, Nicole
Cellini, Jacqueline
Mita, Carol
Coletti, Margaret
Whelan, Julia
Khorasani, Ramin
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Characteristics of knowledge content in a curated online evidence library
Health Informatics
author_sort varada, sowmya
spelling Varada, Sowmya Lacson, Ronilda Raja, Ali S Ip, Ivan K Schneider, Louise Osterbur, David Bain, Paul Vetrano, Nicole Cellini, Jacqueline Mita, Carol Coletti, Margaret Whelan, Julia Khorasani, Ramin 1067-5027 1527-974X Oxford University Press (OUP) Health Informatics http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocx092 <jats:title>Abstract</jats:title> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Objective</jats:title> <jats:p>To describe types of recommendations represented in a curated online evidence library, report on the quality of evidence-based recommendations pertaining to diagnostic imaging exams, and assess underlying knowledge representation.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Materials and Methods</jats:title> <jats:p>The evidence library is populated with clinical decision rules, professional society guidelines, and locally developed best practice guidelines. Individual recommendations were graded based on a standard methodology and compared using chi-square test. Strength of evidence ranged from grade 1 (systematic review) through grade 5 (recommendations based on expert opinion). Finally, variations in the underlying representation of these recommendations were identified.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Results</jats:title> <jats:p>The library contains 546 individual imaging-related recommendations. Only 15% (16/106) of recommendations from clinical decision rules were grade 5 vs 83% (526/636) from professional society practice guidelines and local best practice guidelines that cited grade 5 studies (P &amp;lt; .0001). Minor head trauma, pulmonary embolism, and appendicitis were topic areas supported by the highest quality of evidence. Three main variations in underlying representations of recommendations were “single-decision,” “branching,” and “score-based.”</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Discussion</jats:title> <jats:p>Most recommendations were grade 5, largely because studies to test and validate many recommendations were absent. Recommendation types vary in amount and complexity and, accordingly, the structure and syntax of statements they generate. However, they can be represented in single-decision, branching, and score-based representations.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Conclusion</jats:title> <jats:p>In a curated evidence library with graded imaging-based recommendations, evidence quality varied widely, with decision rules providing the highest-quality recommendations. The library may be helpful in highlighting evidence gaps, comparing recommendations from varied sources on similar clinical topics, and prioritizing imaging recommendations to inform clinical decision support implementation.</jats:p> </jats:sec> Characteristics of knowledge content in a curated online evidence library Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
doi_str_mv 10.1093/jamia/ocx092
facet_avail Online
Free
finc_class_facet Medizin
Informatik
format ElectronicArticle
fullrecord blob:ai-49-aHR0cDovL2R4LmRvaS5vcmcvMTAuMTA5My9qYW1pYS9vY3gwOTI
id ai-49-aHR0cDovL2R4LmRvaS5vcmcvMTAuMTA5My9qYW1pYS9vY3gwOTI
institution DE-105
DE-14
DE-Ch1
DE-L229
DE-D275
DE-Bn3
DE-Brt1
DE-Zwi2
DE-D161
DE-Gla1
DE-Zi4
DE-15
DE-Pl11
DE-Rs1
imprint Oxford University Press (OUP), 2018
imprint_str_mv Oxford University Press (OUP), 2018
issn 1067-5027
1527-974X
issn_str_mv 1067-5027
1527-974X
language English
mega_collection Oxford University Press (OUP) (CrossRef)
match_str varada2018characteristicsofknowledgecontentinacuratedonlineevidencelibrary
publishDateSort 2018
publisher Oxford University Press (OUP)
recordtype ai
record_format ai
series Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
source_id 49
title Characteristics of knowledge content in a curated online evidence library
title_unstemmed Characteristics of knowledge content in a curated online evidence library
title_full Characteristics of knowledge content in a curated online evidence library
title_fullStr Characteristics of knowledge content in a curated online evidence library
title_full_unstemmed Characteristics of knowledge content in a curated online evidence library
title_short Characteristics of knowledge content in a curated online evidence library
title_sort characteristics of knowledge content in a curated online evidence library
topic Health Informatics
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocx092
publishDate 2018
physical 507-514
description <jats:title>Abstract</jats:title> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Objective</jats:title> <jats:p>To describe types of recommendations represented in a curated online evidence library, report on the quality of evidence-based recommendations pertaining to diagnostic imaging exams, and assess underlying knowledge representation.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Materials and Methods</jats:title> <jats:p>The evidence library is populated with clinical decision rules, professional society guidelines, and locally developed best practice guidelines. Individual recommendations were graded based on a standard methodology and compared using chi-square test. Strength of evidence ranged from grade 1 (systematic review) through grade 5 (recommendations based on expert opinion). Finally, variations in the underlying representation of these recommendations were identified.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Results</jats:title> <jats:p>The library contains 546 individual imaging-related recommendations. Only 15% (16/106) of recommendations from clinical decision rules were grade 5 vs 83% (526/636) from professional society practice guidelines and local best practice guidelines that cited grade 5 studies (P &amp;lt; .0001). Minor head trauma, pulmonary embolism, and appendicitis were topic areas supported by the highest quality of evidence. Three main variations in underlying representations of recommendations were “single-decision,” “branching,” and “score-based.”</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Discussion</jats:title> <jats:p>Most recommendations were grade 5, largely because studies to test and validate many recommendations were absent. Recommendation types vary in amount and complexity and, accordingly, the structure and syntax of statements they generate. However, they can be represented in single-decision, branching, and score-based representations.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Conclusion</jats:title> <jats:p>In a curated evidence library with graded imaging-based recommendations, evidence quality varied widely, with decision rules providing the highest-quality recommendations. The library may be helpful in highlighting evidence gaps, comparing recommendations from varied sources on similar clinical topics, and prioritizing imaging recommendations to inform clinical decision support implementation.</jats:p> </jats:sec>
container_issue 5
container_start_page 507
container_title Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
container_volume 25
format_de105 Article, E-Article
format_de14 Article, E-Article
format_de15 Article, E-Article
format_de520 Article, E-Article
format_de540 Article, E-Article
format_dech1 Article, E-Article
format_ded117 Article, E-Article
format_degla1 E-Article
format_del152 Buch
format_del189 Article, E-Article
format_dezi4 Article
format_dezwi2 Article, E-Article
format_finc Article, E-Article
format_nrw Article, E-Article
_version_ 1792333621925773323
geogr_code not assigned
last_indexed 2024-03-01T14:15:38.672Z
geogr_code_person not assigned
openURL url_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fvufind.svn.sourceforge.net%3Agenerator&rft.title=Characteristics+of+knowledge+content+in+a+curated+online+evidence+library&rft.date=2018-05-01&genre=article&issn=1527-974X&volume=25&issue=5&spage=507&epage=514&pages=507-514&jtitle=Journal+of+the+American+Medical+Informatics+Association&atitle=Characteristics+of+knowledge+content+in+a+curated+online+evidence+library&aulast=Khorasani&aufirst=Ramin&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1093%2Fjamia%2Focx092&rft.language%5B0%5D=eng
SOLR
_version_ 1792333621925773323
author Varada, Sowmya, Lacson, Ronilda, Raja, Ali S, Ip, Ivan K, Schneider, Louise, Osterbur, David, Bain, Paul, Vetrano, Nicole, Cellini, Jacqueline, Mita, Carol, Coletti, Margaret, Whelan, Julia, Khorasani, Ramin
author_facet Varada, Sowmya, Lacson, Ronilda, Raja, Ali S, Ip, Ivan K, Schneider, Louise, Osterbur, David, Bain, Paul, Vetrano, Nicole, Cellini, Jacqueline, Mita, Carol, Coletti, Margaret, Whelan, Julia, Khorasani, Ramin, Varada, Sowmya, Lacson, Ronilda, Raja, Ali S, Ip, Ivan K, Schneider, Louise, Osterbur, David, Bain, Paul, Vetrano, Nicole, Cellini, Jacqueline, Mita, Carol, Coletti, Margaret, Whelan, Julia, Khorasani, Ramin
author_sort varada, sowmya
container_issue 5
container_start_page 507
container_title Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
container_volume 25
description <jats:title>Abstract</jats:title> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Objective</jats:title> <jats:p>To describe types of recommendations represented in a curated online evidence library, report on the quality of evidence-based recommendations pertaining to diagnostic imaging exams, and assess underlying knowledge representation.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Materials and Methods</jats:title> <jats:p>The evidence library is populated with clinical decision rules, professional society guidelines, and locally developed best practice guidelines. Individual recommendations were graded based on a standard methodology and compared using chi-square test. Strength of evidence ranged from grade 1 (systematic review) through grade 5 (recommendations based on expert opinion). Finally, variations in the underlying representation of these recommendations were identified.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Results</jats:title> <jats:p>The library contains 546 individual imaging-related recommendations. Only 15% (16/106) of recommendations from clinical decision rules were grade 5 vs 83% (526/636) from professional society practice guidelines and local best practice guidelines that cited grade 5 studies (P &amp;lt; .0001). Minor head trauma, pulmonary embolism, and appendicitis were topic areas supported by the highest quality of evidence. Three main variations in underlying representations of recommendations were “single-decision,” “branching,” and “score-based.”</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Discussion</jats:title> <jats:p>Most recommendations were grade 5, largely because studies to test and validate many recommendations were absent. Recommendation types vary in amount and complexity and, accordingly, the structure and syntax of statements they generate. However, they can be represented in single-decision, branching, and score-based representations.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Conclusion</jats:title> <jats:p>In a curated evidence library with graded imaging-based recommendations, evidence quality varied widely, with decision rules providing the highest-quality recommendations. The library may be helpful in highlighting evidence gaps, comparing recommendations from varied sources on similar clinical topics, and prioritizing imaging recommendations to inform clinical decision support implementation.</jats:p> </jats:sec>
doi_str_mv 10.1093/jamia/ocx092
facet_avail Online, Free
finc_class_facet Medizin, Informatik
format ElectronicArticle
format_de105 Article, E-Article
format_de14 Article, E-Article
format_de15 Article, E-Article
format_de520 Article, E-Article
format_de540 Article, E-Article
format_dech1 Article, E-Article
format_ded117 Article, E-Article
format_degla1 E-Article
format_del152 Buch
format_del189 Article, E-Article
format_dezi4 Article
format_dezwi2 Article, E-Article
format_finc Article, E-Article
format_nrw Article, E-Article
geogr_code not assigned
geogr_code_person not assigned
id ai-49-aHR0cDovL2R4LmRvaS5vcmcvMTAuMTA5My9qYW1pYS9vY3gwOTI
imprint Oxford University Press (OUP), 2018
imprint_str_mv Oxford University Press (OUP), 2018
institution DE-105, DE-14, DE-Ch1, DE-L229, DE-D275, DE-Bn3, DE-Brt1, DE-Zwi2, DE-D161, DE-Gla1, DE-Zi4, DE-15, DE-Pl11, DE-Rs1
issn 1067-5027, 1527-974X
issn_str_mv 1067-5027, 1527-974X
language English
last_indexed 2024-03-01T14:15:38.672Z
match_str varada2018characteristicsofknowledgecontentinacuratedonlineevidencelibrary
mega_collection Oxford University Press (OUP) (CrossRef)
physical 507-514
publishDate 2018
publishDateSort 2018
publisher Oxford University Press (OUP)
record_format ai
recordtype ai
series Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
source_id 49
spelling Varada, Sowmya Lacson, Ronilda Raja, Ali S Ip, Ivan K Schneider, Louise Osterbur, David Bain, Paul Vetrano, Nicole Cellini, Jacqueline Mita, Carol Coletti, Margaret Whelan, Julia Khorasani, Ramin 1067-5027 1527-974X Oxford University Press (OUP) Health Informatics http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocx092 <jats:title>Abstract</jats:title> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Objective</jats:title> <jats:p>To describe types of recommendations represented in a curated online evidence library, report on the quality of evidence-based recommendations pertaining to diagnostic imaging exams, and assess underlying knowledge representation.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Materials and Methods</jats:title> <jats:p>The evidence library is populated with clinical decision rules, professional society guidelines, and locally developed best practice guidelines. Individual recommendations were graded based on a standard methodology and compared using chi-square test. Strength of evidence ranged from grade 1 (systematic review) through grade 5 (recommendations based on expert opinion). Finally, variations in the underlying representation of these recommendations were identified.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Results</jats:title> <jats:p>The library contains 546 individual imaging-related recommendations. Only 15% (16/106) of recommendations from clinical decision rules were grade 5 vs 83% (526/636) from professional society practice guidelines and local best practice guidelines that cited grade 5 studies (P &amp;lt; .0001). Minor head trauma, pulmonary embolism, and appendicitis were topic areas supported by the highest quality of evidence. Three main variations in underlying representations of recommendations were “single-decision,” “branching,” and “score-based.”</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Discussion</jats:title> <jats:p>Most recommendations were grade 5, largely because studies to test and validate many recommendations were absent. Recommendation types vary in amount and complexity and, accordingly, the structure and syntax of statements they generate. However, they can be represented in single-decision, branching, and score-based representations.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Conclusion</jats:title> <jats:p>In a curated evidence library with graded imaging-based recommendations, evidence quality varied widely, with decision rules providing the highest-quality recommendations. The library may be helpful in highlighting evidence gaps, comparing recommendations from varied sources on similar clinical topics, and prioritizing imaging recommendations to inform clinical decision support implementation.</jats:p> </jats:sec> Characteristics of knowledge content in a curated online evidence library Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
spellingShingle Varada, Sowmya, Lacson, Ronilda, Raja, Ali S, Ip, Ivan K, Schneider, Louise, Osterbur, David, Bain, Paul, Vetrano, Nicole, Cellini, Jacqueline, Mita, Carol, Coletti, Margaret, Whelan, Julia, Khorasani, Ramin, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, Characteristics of knowledge content in a curated online evidence library, Health Informatics
title Characteristics of knowledge content in a curated online evidence library
title_full Characteristics of knowledge content in a curated online evidence library
title_fullStr Characteristics of knowledge content in a curated online evidence library
title_full_unstemmed Characteristics of knowledge content in a curated online evidence library
title_short Characteristics of knowledge content in a curated online evidence library
title_sort characteristics of knowledge content in a curated online evidence library
title_unstemmed Characteristics of knowledge content in a curated online evidence library
topic Health Informatics
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocx092