Khodambashi Soudabeh, Nytrø Øystein
Department of computer and Information Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2017 Sep 4;17(1):132. doi: 10.1186/s12911-017-0530-5.
To improve consistency and streamline development and publication of clinical guidelines (GL), there is a need for appropriate software support. We have found few specific tools for the actual authoring and maintaining of GLs, and correspondingly few analyses or reviews of GL development tool functionality. In order to assist GL developers in selecting and evaluating tools, this study tries to address the perceived gap by pursuing four goals: 1) identifying available tools, 2) reviewing a representative group of tools and their supported functionalities, 3) uncovering themes of features that the studied tools support, and 4) compare the selected tools with respect to the themes.
We conducted a literature search using PubMed and Google Scholar in order to find GL development tools (GDT). We also explored tools and Content Management Systems (CMS) used in representative organisations and international communities that develop and maintain GLs. By reading a selected representative group of five GL tool manuals, exploring tools hands-on, we uncovered 8 themes of features. All found tools were compared according to these themes in order to identify the level of functionality they offer to support the GL development and publishing process. In order to limit the scope, tools for designing computer-interpretable/executable GL are excluded.
After finding 1552 published papers, contacting 7 organizations and international communities, we identified a total of 19 unique tools, of which 5 tools were selected as representative in this paper. We uncovered a total of 8 themes of features according to the identified functionalities that each tool provides. Four features were common among tools: Collaborative authoring process support, user access control, GL repository management, electronic publishing. We found that the GRADE methodology was supported by three of the reviewed tools, while only two tools support annotating GL with MeSH terms. We also identified that monitoring progress, reference management, Managing versions (version control), and Change control (tracking) were often the missing features.
The results can promote sector discussion and eventual agreement on important tool functionality. It may aid tool and GL developers towards more efficient, and effective, GL authoring.
为提高临床指南（GL）制定与发布的一致性并简化流程，需要适当的软件支持。我们发现用于实际撰写和维护GL的特定工具很少，相应地，对GL开发工具功能的分析或综述也很少。为了帮助GL开发者选择和评估工具，本研究试图通过实现四个目标来弥补这一认知差距：1）识别可用工具；2）审查一组具有代表性的工具及其支持的功能；3）揭示所研究工具支持的功能主题；4）根据这些主题比较所选工具。
我们使用PubMed和谷歌学术进行文献检索，以查找GL开发工具（GDT）。我们还探索了在制定和维护GL的代表性组织和国际社区中使用的工具及内容管理系统（CMS）。通过阅读选定的一组具有代表性的五本GL工具手册，并实际操作这些工具，我们发现了8个功能主题。根据这些主题对所有找到的工具进行比较，以确定它们为支持GL开发和发布过程所提供的功能水平。为了限制范围，排除了用于设计计算机可解释/可执行GL的工具。
在找到1552篇已发表论文、联系7个组织和国际社区后，我们总共识别出19种独特工具，本文选择了其中5种作为代表。根据每个工具提供的已识别功能，我们总共发现了8个功能主题。工具之间有四个共同功能：协作撰写过程支持、用户访问控制、GL存储库管理、电子出版。我们发现，三种被审查工具支持GRADE方法，而只有两种工具支持用医学主题词（MeSH）注释GL。我们还发现，进度监控、参考文献管理、版本管理（版本控制）和变更控制（跟踪）通常是缺失的功能。
研究结果可促进该领域对重要工具功能的讨论并最终达成共识。它可能有助于工具和GL开发者更高效、有效地撰写GL。
