Sorbonne Université, Université Sorbonne Paris Nord, INSERM, Laboratoire d'Informatique Médicale et d'Ingénierie des connaissances en e-Santé, LIMICS, F-75006 Paris, France.
AP-HP, DRCI, Paris, France.
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2022 Jun 29;295:304-307. doi: 10.3233/SHTI220723.
Guideline-based clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) need the most recent evidence for reliable performance, making the provision of regularly updated clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) a major issue. Some international guidelines are renewed in short intervals and can be used for checking the status of given national guidelines with regard to the most recent evidence. Considering the volume of medical data and the number of CPGs published, computerized comparison of clinical guidelines can be an effective method. We performed a scoping review to evaluate the methods used for comparing two CPGs. We searched for methods for extracting CPG components and for methods used for comparing CPGs at different levels of abstraction. In each case, computerized and semi-computerized methods were recognized. Expert knowledge has yet a determinant role for assessing the comparisons, this role being more prominent for the extraction of semantic rules and the resolution of inconsistencies.
基于指南的临床决策支持系统（CDSS）需要最新的证据以确保可靠的性能，因此定期更新临床实践指南（CPG）是一个主要问题。一些国际指南的更新间隔较短，可用于检查给定国家指南与最新证据的一致性。考虑到医疗数据的数量和发布的 CPG 数量，计算机化的临床指南比较可以是一种有效的方法。我们进行了范围综述，以评估用于比较两个 CPG 的方法。我们搜索了用于提取 CPG 组件的方法以及用于在不同抽象级别比较 CPG 的方法。在每种情况下，都认可了计算机化和半计算机化方法。专家知识在评估比较方面仍然起着决定性的作用，这种作用在提取语义规则和解决不一致性方面更为突出。
