Dataset Information

How to translate therapeutic recommendations in clinical practice guidelines into rules for critiquing physician prescriptions? Methods and application to five guidelines.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines give recommendations about what to do in various medical situations, including therapeutical recommendations for drug prescription. An effective way to computerize these recommendations is to design critiquing decision support systems, i.e. systems that criticize the physician's prescription when it does not conform to the guidelines. These systems are commonly based on a list of "if conditions then criticism" rules. However, writing these rules from the guidelines is not a trivial task. The objective of this article is to propose methods that (1) simplify the implementation of guidelines' therapeutical recommendations in critiquing systems by automatically translating structured therapeutical recommendations into a list of "if conditions then criticize" rules, and (2) can generate an appropriate textual label to explain to the physician why his/her prescription is not recommended. METHODS: We worked on the therapeutic recommendations in five clinical practice guidelines concerning chronic diseases related to the management of cardiovascular risk. We evaluated the system using a test base of more than 2000 cases. RESULTS: Algorithms for automatically translating therapeutical recommendations into "if conditions then criticize" rules are presented. Eight generic recommendations are also proposed; they are guideline-independent, and can be used as default behaviour for handling various situations that are usually implicit in the guidelines, such as decreasing the dose of a poorly tolerated drug. Finally, we provide models and methods for generating a human-readable textual critique. The system was successfully evaluated on the test base. CONCLUSION: We show that it is possible to criticize physicians' prescriptions starting from a structured clinical guideline, and to provide clear explanations. We are now planning a randomized clinical trial to evaluate the impact of the system on practices.

SUBMITTER: Lamy JB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2893080 | biostudies-other | 2010

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How to translate therapeutic recommendations in clinical practice guidelines into rules for critiquing physician prescriptions? Methods and application to five guidelines.

Lamy Jean-Baptiste JB Ebrahiminia Vahid V Riou Christine C Seroussi Brigitte B Bouaud Jacques J Simon Christian C Dubois Stéphane S Butti Antoine A Simon Gérard G Favre Madeleine M Falcoff Hector H Venot Alain A

BMC medical informatics and decision making 20100528

<h4>Background</h4>Clinical practice guidelines give recommendations about what to do in various medical situations, including therapeutical recommendations for drug prescription. An effective way to computerize these recommendations is to design critiquing decision support systems, i.e. systems that criticize the physician's prescription when it does not conform to the guidelines. These systems are commonly based on a list of "if conditions then criticism" rules. However, writing these rules fr ...[more]

PMID: 20509903

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionAssessing the process used to synthesize the evidence in clinical practice guidelines enables users to determine the trustworthiness of the recommendations. Clinicians are increasingly dependent on guidelines to keep up with vast quantities of medical literature, and guidelines are followed to avoid malpractice suits. We aimed to assess whether systematic methods were used when synthesizing the evidence for guidelines; and to determine the type of review cited in support of recommendations.MethodsGuidelines published in 2017 and 2018 were retrieved from the TRIP and Epistemonikos databases. We randomly sorted and sequentially screened clinical guidelines on all topics to select the first 50 that met our inclusion criteria. Our primary outcomes were the number of guidelines using either a systematic or non-systematic process to gather, assess, and synthesise evidence; and the numbers of recommendations within guidelines based on different types of evidence synthesis (systematic or non-systematic reviews). If a review was cited, we looked for evidence that it was critically appraised, and recorded which quality assessment tool was used. Finally, we examined the relation between the use of the GRADE approach, systematic review process, and type of funder.ResultsOf the 50 guidelines, 17 (34%) systematically synthesised the evidence to inform recommendations. These 17 guidelines clearly reported their objectives and eligibility criteria, conducted comprehensive search strategies, and assessed the quality of the studies. Of the 29/50 guidelines that included reviews, 6 (21%) assessed the risk of bias of the review. The quality of primary studies was reported in 30/50 (60%) guidelines.ConclusionsHigh quality, systematic review products provide the best available evidence to inform guideline recommendations. Using non-systematic methods compromises the validity and reliability of the evidence used to inform guideline recommendations, leading to potentially misleading and untrustworthy results.

Project description:IntroductionPaediatric antiretroviral therapy (ART) guidelines have been updated several times in recent years. We assessed implementation of ART guidelines among under-five children to inform the transition to universal paediatric ART in Tanzania.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of infants (0 to 11 months) and children (12 to 59 months) enrolled between 2010 and 2012 using routinely collected data. Infants and children were initiated on ART according to the 2008 World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations/2009 Tanzania guidelines (universal ART for infants). Cumulative ART initiation incidence and correlates of ART initiation were examined using competing risk methods accounting for attrition (death or loss to follow-up). Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox regression models were used to examine attrition on ART and its correlates.ResultsA total of 1679 children were enrolled at 69 clinics: 469 (28%) infants and 1210 (74%) children. Infant cumulative ART initiation incidence was 59.6, 71.3 and 78.0% at one, three and six months of follow-up. Infants were more likely to start ART if enrolled in 2012 [adjusted sub-hazard ratio (AsHR)=2.2, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.7 to 2.8] or 2011 (AsHR=1.8, 95% CI: 1.4 to 2.3) compared to 2010; they were more likely to start ART from prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission (AsHR=1.6, 95% CI: 1.3 to 2.1) and inpatient wards (AsHR=1.5, 95% CI: 1.2 to 2.0) versus being enrolled from voluntary counselling and testing centres. Attrition at 12 months on ART was 33.9% and was more likely among infants with WHO Stage 4 [adjusted hazard ratio (AHR)=3.1. 95% CI: 1.8 to 5.2] and severe malnutrition (AHR=1.4, 95% CI: 1.0 to 1.9).Among 599 children eligible for ART at enrollment, cumulative ART initiation incidence was 51.8, 68.6 and 76.1% at one, three, and six months. Children were more likely to start ART if enrolled in 2012 (AsHR=1.8, 95% CI: 1.4 to 2.3) or 2011 (AsHR=1.5, 95% CI: 1.2 to 1.8) compared to 2010; they were more likely to start ART at primary health facilities (AsHR=1.5, 95% CI: 1.1 to 2.0) and less likely at urban facilities (AsHR=0.6, 95% CI: 0.5 to 0.9) and facilities without CD4 testing on site (AsHR=0.7, 95% CI: 0.5 to 0.9). Attrition at 12 months on ART was 23.1% and was more likely with severe malnutrition (AHR=1.8, 95% CI: 1.1 to 3.0), WHO Stage 4 (AHR=3.0, 95% CI: 1.0 to 8.5) and outpatient enrolees (AHR=1.7, 95% CI: 1.1 to 2.7).ConclusionsOur findings suggest the gradual adoption of guidelines over calendar time. Interventions to expedite ART initiation and support retention on ART are needed.

Project description:BackgroundIt is not known whether there are differences in the quality and recommendations between evidence-based (EB) and consensus-based (CB) guidelines. We used breast cancer guidelines as a case study to assess for these differences.MethodsFive different instruments to evaluate the quality of guidelines were identified by a literature search. We also searched MEDLINE and the Internet to locate 8 breast cancer guidelines. These guidelines were classified in three categories: evidence based, consensus based and consensus based with no explicit consideration of evidence (CB-EB). Each guideline was evaluated by three of the authors using each of the instruments. For each guideline we assessed the agreement among 14 decision points which were selected from the NCCN (National Cancer Comprehensive Network) guidelines algorithm. For each decision point we recorded the level of the quality of the information used to support it. A regression analysis was performed to assess if the percentage of high quality evidence used in the guidelines development was related to the overall quality of the guidelines.ResultsThree guidelines were classified as EB, three as CB-EB and two as CB. The EB guidelines scored better than CB, with the CB-EB scoring in the middle among all instruments for guidelines quality assessment. No major disagreement in recommendations was detected among the guidelines regardless of the method used for development, but the EB guidelines had a better agreement with the benchmark guideline for any decision point. When the source of evidence used to support decision were of high quality, we found a higher level of full agreement among the guidelines' recommendations. Up to 94% of variation in the quality score among guidelines could be explained by the quality of evidence used for guidelines development.ConclusionEB guidelines have a better quality than CB guidelines and CB-EB guidelines. Explicit use of high quality evidence can lead to a better agreement among recommendations. However, no major disagreement among guidelines was noted regardless of the method for their development.

Project description:ImportancePrimary care clinicians, who are increasingly responsible for caring for the growing population of cancer survivors, may be unfamiliar with appropriate cancer surveillance strategies. Clinical practice guidelines can inform cancer follow-up care and surveillance testing. Vague recommendations and inconsistencies among guidelines can lead to overuse and underuse of health care resources and have a negative impact on cost and quality of survivorship care.ObjectiveTo examine the specificity and consistency of recommendations for surveillance after active treatment across cancer guidelines.Design, setting, and participantsRetrospective cross-sectional analysis of national cancer guidelines from North America and Europe published since 2010 addressing posttreatment care for survivors of the 9 most common cancers. We categorized surveillance modalities into history and physical examinations, tumor markers, diagnostic procedures (eg, colonoscopy), and imaging. Within each guideline, we classified individual recommendations into 5 categories: (1) risk-based recommendation, (2) recommendation for surveillance, (3) addressed but no clear recommendation, (4) recommendation against surveillance, or (5) cases in which surveillance was not addressed. We reviewed each surveillance recommendation for frequency and a stop date, evaluated consistency among guidelines, and analyzed associations between the organizations proposing the guidelines and recommendation characteristics.Main outcomes and measuresDescription of guideline recommendations for cancer surveillance.ResultsWe identified 41 guidelines published between January 1, 2010, and March 1, 2016. Eighty-five percent of guidelines (35) were from professional organizations. Ambiguous recommendations (ie, modality not discussed or discussed without a clear recommendation) were present in 83% of guidelines (34), and 44% (18) recommended against at least 1 test. European guidelines were more likely than North American guidelines to contain ambiguous recommendations (100% vs 68%; P < .01). Recommendations commonly specified testing frequency (from 88% [14 of 16] for tumor markers to 92% [24 of 26] for procedures and/or imaging) but infrequently provided a definitive stop time. Cross-sectional imaging recommendations varied among guidelines for each cancer. For example, among breast cancer guidelines, surveillance computed tomographic scans were recommended against in 2, discussed without a clear recommendation in 1, and not addressed in 3 guidelines.Conclusions and relevanceGuidelines addressing the care of cancer survivors have low specificity and consistency. As guidelines continue to be revised, developers should clarify recommendations with simple, nonambiguous, definitive language for or against the use of specific tests to optimize care quality and resource utilization.

Project description:ObjectiveTo identify and summarize clinical practice guidelines for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and intellectual disability (ID) for the Package of Interventions for Rehabilitation for the World Health Organization (WHO).Data sourcesAcademic databases, Google Scholar, guideline databases, and professional society websites were searched using the general criteria "ASD/ID" AND "rehabilitation" AND "guideline," restricted to English-only guidelines.Study selectionWork group members independently screened titles and abstracts (1952 ASD; 1027 ID) and excluded articles if not (1) a guideline; (2) about rehabilitation; (3) published since 2008; or (4) about ASD/ID. Full-text screening (29 ASD; 5 ID) involved 3 additional exclusion criteria: (1) contained conflict of interest; (2) lacked information on strength of recommendation; or (3) failed the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument. Six guidelines (4 ASD: 2 on youth, 1 on adults, 1 on all ages; 2 ID: 1 on challenging behaviors, 1 on mental health) resulted.Data extractionWork group members extracted 524 recommendations (386 ASD; 138 ID) from the guidelines including the level of evidence, diagnostic and age group, recommendation type (assessment, intervention, service), target, and valence.Data synthesisOf the 270 intervention recommendations (212 ASD; 58 ID), only 36 for ASD and 47 for ID were empirically based. Most comprised biomedical (23%), pharmacologic (29%), and psychosocial (21%) interventions for ASD and behavioral (14%), pharmacologic (29%), and psychological (14%) interventions for ID. Intervention recommendations primarily targeted coexisting conditions (56% ASD; 93% ID), whereas core symptoms received much less attention (26% ASD).ConclusionsClinical practice guidelines reviewed for ASD and ID primarily contained recommendations based on expert opinion, with the plurality of recommendations relating to pharmacologic treatment. Vital next steps include identifying relevant interventions for inclusion in the WHO Package and continuing to conduct rigorous intervention research, particularly on core symptoms of these conditions, to extend recommendations for high-quality guidelines.

Dataset Information

How to translate therapeutic recommendations in clinical practice guidelines into rules for critiquing physician prescriptions? Methods and application to five guidelines.

Publications

How to translate therapeutic recommendations in clinical practice guidelines into rules for critiquing physician prescriptions? Methods and application to five guidelines.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets