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.
- 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 ScholarCross Ref
- 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 ScholarCross Ref
- 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 ScholarCross Ref
- Covidence. [n.,d.]. Covidence systematic review software . www.covidence.org Retrieved July 7, 2021 fromGoogle Scholar
- 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 ScholarCross Ref
- 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 ScholarCross Ref
- 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 Scholar
- 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 ScholarCross Ref
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- 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 ScholarCross Ref
- 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 Scholar
- 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 ScholarCross Ref
- 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 Scholar
Index Terms
- CTrO-Editor: A Web-based Tool to Capture Clinical Trial Data for Aggregation and Pooling
Recommendations
Patient-Centered Clinical Trials Decision Support using Linked Open Data
Patients often want to participate in relevant clinical trials for new or more effective alternative treatments. The clinical search system made available by the NIH is a step forward to support the patient's decision making, but, it is difficult to use ...
An Ontology for Clinical Trial Data Integration
SMC '13: Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and CyberneticsA set of well-integrated clinical terminologies is at the core of delivering an efficient clinical trial system. The design and outcomes of a clinical trial can be improved significantly through an unambiguous and consistent set of clinical ...
Identifying the semantics of eligibility criteria of clinical trials based on relevant medical ontologies
BIBE '12: Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE 12th International Conference on Bioinformatics & Bioengineering (BIBE)An important objective of the INTEGRATE project1 is to build tools that support the efficient execution of post-genomic multi-centric clinical trials in breast cancer, which includes the automatic assessment of the eligibility of patients for available ...
Comments