skip to main content
10.1145/3460210.3493576acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesk-capConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

CTrO-Editor: A Web-based Tool to Capture Clinical Trial Data for Aggregation and Pooling

Published:02 December 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

As the number of clinical trials carried out and published worldwide keeps growing, better tools for synthesizing the available knowledge become increasingly important. It still requires a significant effort and expertise to aggregate the evidence and results from different clinical trials, a task that is at the core of secondary or comparative studies, meta-analyses, and (living) systematic reviews. Our hypothesis is that the practical challenges involved in synthesizing evidence can be alleviated if the results of clinical trials would be published in a machine-readable format using a well-defined (semantic) vocabulary. Building on the C-TrO ontology that we developed in earlier work to support the aggregation of evidence from clinical trials as the main use case, in this paper we examine the question whether it is feasible for clinical researchers and medical practitioners to describe the results of clinical trials using the C-TrO ontology. For this purpose, we implemented a Web-based tool called CTrO-Editor that uses a form-based interaction paradigm to allow users to enter all the details regarding study population, arms, endpoints, observations and results of a clinical trial, and that exports the data in an RDF format. We describe the results of the evaluation of the CTrO-Editor with five medical students. Our preliminary results suggest that our paradigm for semantifying clinical trials is feasible, as the students could all successfully model a publication of their choice using our tool within a couple of hours.

References

  1. Rebecca Armstrong, Belinda J. Hall, Jodie Doyle, and Elizabeth Waters. 2011. "Scoping the scope' of a cochrane review . Journal of Public Health , Vol. 33, 1 (2011), 147--150.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Jessica Babineau. 2014. Product review: covidence (systematic review software). Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association/Journal de l'Association des bibliothèques de la santé du Canada , Vol. 35, 2 (2014), 68--71.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Elaine Beller, Justin Clark, Guy Tsafnat, et almbox. 2018. Making progress with the automation of systematic reviews: principles of the International Collaboration for the Automation of Systematic Reviews (ICASR). Systematic Reviews , Vol. 7, 1 (2018), 77.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Covidence. [n.,d.]. Covidence systematic review software . www.covidence.org Retrieved July 7, 2021 fromGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Julian H. Elliott, Anneliese Synnot, Tari Turner, et almbox. 2017. Living systematic review: 1. Introduction -- the why, what, when, and how. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology , Vol. 91 (2017), 23--30.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Liz Kellermeyer, Ben Harnke, and Shandra Knight. 2018. Covidence and Rayyan. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA , Vol. 106, 4 (2018), 580--583.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Svetlana Kiritchenko, Berry De Bruijn, Simona Carini, Joel Martin, and Ida Sim. 2010. ExaCT: automatic extraction of clinical trial characteristics from journal publications. BMC medical informatics and decision making , Vol. 10 (2010), 56.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Christian Kohl, Emma J McIntosh, Stefan Unger, et almbox. 2018. Online tools supporting the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and systematic maps: a case study on CADIMA and review of existing tools. Environmental Evidence , Vol. 7, 1 (2018), 8.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Olivia Sanchez-Graillet, Philipp Cimiano, Christian Witte, and Basil Ell. 2019. C-TrO: An Ontology for Summarization and Aggregation of the Level of Evidence in Clinical Trials. In Proc. of the 5th Joint Ontology Workshops (JOWO): Ontologies and Data in the Life Sciences .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. The Cochrane Organization. 2019 a. Guidance for the production and publication of Cochrane living systematic reviews: Cochrane Reviews in living mode. https://community.cochrane.org/sites/default/files/uploads/inline-files/Transform/201912_LSR_Revised_Guidance.pdf Retrieved May 5, 2021 fromGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. The Cochrane Organization. 2019 b. Publishing living evidence. Living Evidence Network "state of the science" webinar. https://community.cochrane.org/sites/default/files/uploads/inline-files/Transform/201907_LEN_Publishing_Slides.pdf Retrieved May 5, 2021 fromGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. The Cochrane Organization. 2019 c. Results from the evaluation of the pilot living systematic reviews: What works? What could we improve? https://community.cochrane.org/sites/default/files/uploads/inline-files/Transform/201905%20LSR_pilot_evaluation_report.pdf Retrieved May 5, 2021 fromGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Hugh Waddington, Edoardo Masset, and Emmanuel Jimenez. 2018. What have we learned after ten years of systematic reviews in international development? Journal of Development Effectiveness , Vol. 10, 1 (2018), 1--16.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Mark D Wilkinson, Michel Dumontier, G Aalbersberg, Ij J a Appleton, et almbox. 2016. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific data , Vol. 3, 160018 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Marinus Winters, Robert-Jan de Vos, Marienke van Middelkoop, et almbox. 2021. Stay alive! What are living systematic reviews and what are their advantages and challenges? British Journal of Sports Medicine , Vol. 55, 10 (2021), 519--520.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Wendy Wu, Katherine Akers, Ella Hu, et almbox. 2018. Digital Tools for Managing Different Steps of the Systematic Review Process (Poster). In The Medical Library Association Annual Meeting. Library Scholarly Publications. https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/libsp/136Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. CTrO-Editor: A Web-based Tool to Capture Clinical Trial Data for Aggregation and Pooling

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          K-CAP '21: Proceedings of the 11th Knowledge Capture Conference
          December 2021
          300 pages
          ISBN:9781450384575
          DOI:10.1145/3460210

          Copyright © 2021 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 2 December 2021

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • short-paper

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate55of198submissions,28%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader