Suppr超能文献

证据评估:一项范围审查、概念框架及研究议程

Evidence appraisal: a scoping review, conceptual framework, and research agenda.

作者信息

Goldstein Andrew, Venker Eric, Weng Chunhua

机构信息

Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.

Department of Medicine, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.

出版信息

J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017 Nov 1;24(6):1192-1203. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocx050.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Critical appraisal of clinical evidence promises to help prevent, detect, and address flaws related to study importance, ethics, validity, applicability, and reporting. These research issues are of growing concern. The purpose of this scoping review is to survey the current literature on evidence appraisal to develop a conceptual framework and an informatics research agenda.

METHODS

We conducted an iterative literature search of Medline for discussion or research on the critical appraisal of clinical evidence. After title and abstract review, 121 articles were included in the analysis. We performed qualitative thematic analysis to describe the evidence appraisal architecture and its issues and opportunities. From this analysis, we derived a conceptual framework and an informatics research agenda.

RESULTS

We identified 68 themes in 10 categories. This analysis revealed that the practice of evidence appraisal is quite common but is rarely subjected to documentation, organization, validation, integration, or uptake. This is related to underdeveloped tools, scant incentives, and insufficient acquisition of appraisal data and transformation of the data into usable knowledge.

DISCUSSION

The gaps in acquiring appraisal data, transforming the data into actionable information and knowledge, and ensuring its dissemination and adoption can be addressed with proven informatics approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence appraisal faces several challenges, but implementing an informatics research agenda would likely help realize the potential of evidence appraisal for improving the rigor and value of clinical evidence.

摘要

目的

对临床证据进行严格评估有望帮助预防、发现并解决与研究重要性、伦理、有效性、适用性及报告相关的缺陷。这些研究问题日益受到关注。本范围综述的目的是调查当前关于证据评估的文献,以制定一个概念框架和一个信息学研究议程。

方法

我们对Medline进行了迭代文献检索,以查找关于临床证据严格评估的讨论或研究。在标题和摘要审查之后,121篇文章被纳入分析。我们进行了定性主题分析,以描述证据评估架构及其问题与机遇。通过该分析,我们得出了一个概念框架和一个信息学研究议程。

结果

我们在10个类别中识别出68个主题。该分析表明,证据评估的实践相当普遍,但很少进行记录、组织、验证、整合或应用。这与工具不完善、激励不足以及评估数据获取不足和数据转化为可用知识不够有关。

讨论

获取评估数据、将数据转化为可操作的信息和知识以及确保其传播和应用方面的差距可以通过成熟的信息学方法来解决。

结论

证据评估面临若干挑战,但实施信息学研究议程可能有助于实现证据评估在提高临床证据的严谨性和价值方面的潜力。

相似文献

1
Evidence appraisal: a scoping review, conceptual framework, and research agenda.
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017 Nov 1;24(6):1192-1203. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocx050.
3
Analysis of evidence appraisals for interventional studies in family medicine using an informatics approach.
Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2019 Aug 22;20:e123. doi: 10.1017/S1463423619000264.
7
Trends in publication of nursing informatics research.
AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2014 Nov 14;2014:805-14. eCollection 2014.
10
Exploring conceptual and theoretical frameworks for nurse practitioner education: a scoping review protocol.
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015 Oct;13(10):146-55. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-2150.

引用本文的文献

2
PubMed captures more fine-grained bibliographic data on scientific commentary than Web of Science: a comparative analysis.
BMJ Health Care Inform. 2024 Oct 11;31(1):e101017. doi: 10.1136/bmjhci-2024-101017.
3
Retrieval augmented scientific claim verification.
JAMIA Open. 2024 Feb 21;7(1):ooae021. doi: 10.1093/jamiaopen/ooae021. eCollection 2024 Apr.
4
AI-generated text may have a role in evidence-based medicine.
Nat Med. 2023 Jul;29(7):1593-1594. doi: 10.1038/s41591-023-02366-9.
6
The voices of children and young people during COVID-19: A critical review of methods.
Acta Paediatr. 2022 Sep;111(9):1670-1681. doi: 10.1111/apa.16422. Epub 2022 Jun 12.
7
Preparing practical in-person evidence-based journal club in COVID-19 crisis.
J Adv Med Educ Prof. 2020 Jul;8(3):146-147. doi: 10.30476/jamp.2020.86217.1225.
8
Understanding the nature and scope of clinical research commentaries in PubMed.
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020 Mar 1;27(3):449-456. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocz209.
10
Analysis of evidence appraisals for interventional studies in family medicine using an informatics approach.
Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2019 Aug 22;20:e123. doi: 10.1017/S1463423619000264.

本文引用的文献

3
Getting paediatric clinical trials published.
Lancet. 2016 Nov 12;388(10058):2333-2334. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32125-0.
4
Scientific literature: Information overload.
Nature. 2016 Jul 21;535(7612):457-8. doi: 10.1038/nj7612-457a.
6
MIMIC-III, a freely accessible critical care database.
Sci Data. 2016 May 24;3:160035. doi: 10.1038/sdata.2016.35.
7
Sharing clinical trial data: a proposal from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.
Lancet. 2016 Jan 23;387(10016):e9-e11. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01279-9.
8
Sharing Individual Participant Data (IPD) within the Context of the Trial Reporting System (TRS).
PLoS Med. 2016 Jan 19;13(1):e1001946. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001946. eCollection 2016 Jan.
9
Meta-Research: Broadening the Scope of PLOS Biology.
PLoS Biol. 2016 Jan 4;14(1):e1002334. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002334. eCollection 2016 Jan.
10

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验