Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 85
Filtrar
1.
Trials ; 22(1): 153, 2021 Feb 18.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33602275

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The sharing of individual participant-level data from COVID-19 trials would allow re-use and secondary analysis that can help accelerate the identification of effective treatments. The sharing of trial data is not the norm, but the unprecedented pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 may serve as an impetus for greater data sharing. We sought to assess the data sharing intentions of interventional COVID-19 trials as declared in trial registrations and publications. METHODS: We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed for COVID-19 interventional trials. We analyzed responses to ClinicalTrials.gov fields regarding intent to share individual participant level data and analyzed the data sharing statements in eligible publications. RESULTS: Nine hundred twenty-four trial registrations were analyzed. 15.7% were willing to share, of which 38.6% were willing to share immediately upon publication of results. 47.6% declared they were not willing to share. Twenty-eight publications were analyzed representing 26 unique COVID-19 trials. Only seven publications contained data sharing statements; six indicated a willingness to share data whereas one indicated that data was not available for sharing. CONCLUSIONS: At a time of pressing need for researchers to work together to combat a global pandemic, intent to share individual participant-level data from COVID-19 interventional trials is limited.


Asunto(s)
/terapia , Ensayos Clínicos como Asunto/estadística & datos numéricos , Difusión de la Información , Publicaciones/estadística & datos numéricos , Proyectos de Investigación/estadística & datos numéricos , /epidemiología , Humanos , Intención , Pandemias/prevención & control
2.
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth ; 9(2): e24570, 2021 Feb 03.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33533721

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The field of digital medicine has seen rapid growth over the past decade. With this unfettered growth, challenges surrounding interoperability have emerged as a critical barrier to translating digital medicine into practice. In order to understand how to mitigate challenges in digital medicine research and practice, this community must understand the landscape of digital medicine professionals, which digital medicine tools are being used and how, and user perspectives on current challenges in the field of digital medicine. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study is to provide information to the digital medicine community that is working to establish frameworks and best practices for interoperability in digital medicine. We sought to learn about the background of digital medicine professionals and determine which sensors and file types are being used most commonly in digital medicine research. We also sought to understand perspectives on digital medicine interoperability. METHODS: We used a web-based survey to query a total of 56 digital medicine professionals from May 1, 2020, to July 10, 2020, on their educational and work experience, the sensors, file types, and toolkits they use professionally, and their perspectives on interoperability in digital medicine. RESULTS: We determined that the digital medicine community comes from diverse educational backgrounds and uses a variety of sensors and file types. Sensors measuring physical activity and the cardiovascular system are the most frequently used, and smartphones continue to be the dominant source of digital health information collection in the digital medicine community. We show that there is not a general consensus on file types in digital medicine, and data are currently handled in multiple ways. There is consensus that interoperability is a critical impediment in digital medicine, with 93% (52) of survey respondents in agreement. However, only 36% (20) of respondents currently use tools for interoperability in digital medicine. We identified three key interoperability needs to be met: integration with electronic health records, implementation of standard data schemas, and standard and verifiable methods for digital medicine research. We show that digital medicine professionals are eager to adopt new tools to solve interoperability problems, and we suggest tools to support digital medicine interoperability. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the digital medicine community, the sensors and file types they use, and their perspectives on interoperability will enable the development and implementation of solutions that fill critical interoperability gaps in digital medicine. The challenges to interoperability outlined by this study will drive the next steps in creating an interoperable digital medicine community. Establishing best practices to address these challenges and employing platforms for digital medicine interoperability will be essential to furthering the field of digital medicine.

3.
Ann Intern Med ; 2020 Oct 20.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33076694

RESUMEN

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has challenged the traditional public health balance between benefiting the good of the community through contract tracing and restricting individual liberty. This article first analyzes important technical and ethical issues regarding new smartphone apps that facilitate contact tracing and exposure notification. It then presents a framework for assessing contact tracing, whether manual or digital: the effectiveness at mitigating the pandemic; acceptability of risks, particularly privacy; and equitable distribution of benefits and risks. Both manual and digital contact tracing require public trust, engagement of minority communities, prompt COVID-19 testing and return of results, and high adherence with physical distancing and use of masks.

4.
BMJ Open ; 10(10): e039326, 2020 10 29.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33122319

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Clinical trial data sharing has the potential to accelerate scientific progress, answer new lines of scientific inquiry, support reproducibility and prevent redundancy. Vivli, a non-profit organisation, operates a global platform for sharing of individual participant-level trial data and associated documents. Sharing of these data collected from each trial participant enables combining of these data to drive new scientific insights or assess reproducibility-not possible with the aggregate or summary data tables historically made available. We report on our initial experience including key metrics, lessons learned and how we see our role in the data sharing ecosystem. We also describe how Vivli is addressing the needs of the COVID-19 challenge through a new dedicated portal that provides a direct search function for COVID-19 studies, availability for fast-tracked request review and data sharing. DATA SUMMARY: The Vivli platform was established in 2018 and has partnered with 28 diverse members from industry, academic institutions, government platforms and non-profit foundations. Currently, 5400 trials representing 3.6 million participants are shared on the platform. From July 2018 to September 2020, Vivli received 201 requests. To date, 106 of 201 requests received approval, 5 have been declined, 27 withdrew and 27 are in the revision stage. CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic has only magnified the necessity for data sharing. If most data are shared and in a manner that allows interoperability, then we have hope of moving towards a cohesive scientific understanding more quickly not only for COVID-19 but also for all diseases. Conversely, if only isolated pockets of data are shared then society loses the opportunity to close vital gaps in our understanding of this rapidly evolving epidemic. This current challenge serves to highlight the value of data sharing platforms-critical enablers that help researchers build on prior knowledge.


Asunto(s)
Ensayos Clínicos como Asunto , Infecciones por Coronavirus , Manejo de Datos , Difusión de la Información/métodos , Servicios de Información , Pandemias , Neumonía Viral , Salud Pública/tendencias , Betacoronavirus , Investigación Biomédica/métodos , Investigación Biomédica/estadística & datos numéricos , Infecciones por Coronavirus/prevención & control , Infecciones por Coronavirus/terapia , Manejo de Datos/métodos , Manejo de Datos/organización & administración , Manejo de Datos/tendencias , Humanos , Servicios de Información/organización & administración , Servicios de Información/tendencias , Pandemias/prevención & control , Neumonía Viral/prevención & control , Neumonía Viral/terapia , Proyectos de Investigación
5.
Sci Data ; 7(1): 281, 2020 08 27.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32855408

RESUMEN

We present Chia, a novel, large annotated corpus of patient eligibility criteria extracted from 1,000 interventional, Phase IV clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. This dataset includes 12,409 annotated eligibility criteria, represented by 41,487 distinctive entities of 15 entity types and 25,017 relationships of 12 relationship types. Each criterion is represented as a directed acyclic graph, which can be easily transformed into Boolean logic to form a database query. Chia can serve as a shared benchmark to develop and test future machine learning, rule-based, or hybrid methods for information extraction from free-text clinical trial eligibility criteria.

6.
Front Public Health ; 8: 260, 2020.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32695740

RESUMEN

Although group-level evidence supports the use of behavioral interventions to enhance cognitive and emotional well-being, different interventions may be more acceptable or effective for different people. N-of-1 trials are single-patient crossover trials designed to estimate treatment effectiveness in a single patient. We designed a mobile health (mHealth) supported N-of-1 trial platform permitting US adult volunteers to conduct their own 30-day self-experiments testing a behavioral intervention of their choice (deep breathing/meditation, gratitude journaling, physical activity, or helpful acts) on daily measurements of stress, focus, and happiness. We assessed uptake of the study, perceived usability of the N-of-1 trial system, and influence of results (both reported and perceived) on enthusiasm for the chosen intervention (defined as perceived helpfulness of the chosen intervention and intent to continue performing the intervention in the future). Following a social media and public radio campaign, 447 adults enrolled in the study and 259 completed the post-study survey. Most were highly educated. Perceived system usability was high (mean scale score 4.35/5.0, SD 0.57). Enthusiasm for the chosen intervention was greater among those with higher pre-study expectations that the activity would be beneficial for them (p < 0.001), those who obtained more positive N-of-1 results (as directly reported to participants) (p < 0.001), and those who interpreted their N-of-1 study results more positively (p < 0.001). However, reported results did not significantly influence enthusiasm after controlling for participants' interpretations. The interaction between pre-study expectation of benefit and N-of-1 results interpretation was significant (p < 0.001), such that those with the lowest starting pre-study expectations reported greater intervention enthusiasm when provided with results they interpreted as positive. We conclude that N-of-1 behavioral trials can be appealing to a broad albeit highly educated and mostly female audience, that usability was acceptable, and that N-of-1 behavioral trials may have the greatest utility among those most skeptical of the intervention to begin with.

8.
J Gen Intern Med ; 35(1): 102-111, 2020 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31463686

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: Opioids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are frequently prescribed for chronic musculoskeletal pain, despite limited evidence of effectiveness and well-documented adverse effects. We assessed the effects of participating in a structured, personalized self-experiment ("N-of-1 trial") on analgesic prescribing in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. METHODS: We randomized 215 patients with chronic pain to participate in an N-of-1 trial facilitated by a mobile health app or to receive usual care. Medical records of participating patients were reviewed at enrollment and 6 months later to assess analgesic prescribing. We established thresholds of ≥ 50, ≥ 20, and > 0 morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) per day to capture patients taking relatively high doses only, patients taking low-moderate as well as relatively high doses, and patients taking any dose of opioids, respectively. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the N-of-1 and control groups in the percentage of patients prescribed any opioids (relative odds ratio (ROR) = 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.61 to 1.80, p = 0.87). There was a clinically substantial but statistically not significant reduction of the percentage of patients receiving ≥ 20 MME (ROR = 0.58; 95% CI = 0.33 to 1.04, p = 0.07) and also in the percentage receiving ≥ 50 MME (ROR = 0.50; 95% CI = 0.19 to 1.34, p = 0.17). There was a significant reduction in the proportion of patients in the N-of-1 group prescribed NSAIDs compared with control (relative odds ratio = 0.53; 95% CI = 0.29 to 0.96, p = 0.04), with no concomitant increase in average pain intensity. There was no significant change in use of adjunctive medications (acetaminophen, gabapentenoids, or topicals). DISCUSSION: These exploratory results suggest that participation in N-of-1 trials may reduce long-term use of NSAIDs; there is also a weak signal for an effect on use of opioids. Additional research is needed to confirm these results and elucidate possible mechanisms. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02116621.

9.
J Law Med Ethics ; 47(3): 369-373, 2019 09.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31560635

RESUMEN

Although data sharing platforms host diverse data types the features of these platforms are well-suited to facilitating biomarker research. Given the current state of biomarker discovery, an innovative paradigm to accelerate biomarker discovery is to utilize platforms such as Vivli to leverage researchers' abilities to integrate certain classes of biomarkers.

11.
BMC Med ; 17(1): 133, 2019 07 17.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31311528

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: There is great interest in and excitement about the concept of personalized or precision medicine and, in particular, advancing this vision via various 'big data' efforts. While these methods are necessary, they are insufficient to achieve the full personalized medicine promise. A rigorous, complementary 'small data' paradigm that can function both autonomously from and in collaboration with big data is also needed. By 'small data' we build on Estrin's formulation and refer to the rigorous use of data by and for a specific N-of-1 unit (i.e., a single person, clinic, hospital, healthcare system, community, city, etc.) to facilitate improved individual-level description, prediction and, ultimately, control for that specific unit. MAIN BODY: The purpose of this piece is to articulate why a small data paradigm is needed and is valuable in itself, and to provide initial directions for future work that can advance study designs and data analytic techniques for a small data approach to precision health. Scientifically, the central value of a small data approach is that it can uniquely manage complex, dynamic, multi-causal, idiosyncratically manifesting phenomena, such as chronic diseases, in comparison to big data. Beyond this, a small data approach better aligns the goals of science and practice, which can result in more rapid agile learning with less data. There is also, feasibly, a unique pathway towards transportable knowledge from a small data approach, which is complementary to a big data approach. Future work should (1) further refine appropriate methods for a small data approach; (2) advance strategies for better integrating a small data approach into real-world practices; and (3) advance ways of actively integrating the strengths and limitations from both small and big data approaches into a unified scientific knowledge base that is linked via a robust science of causality. CONCLUSION: Small data is valuable in its own right. That said, small and big data paradigms can and should be combined via a foundational science of causality. With these approaches combined, the vision of precision health can be achieved.


Asunto(s)
Interpretación Estadística de Datos , Conjuntos de Datos como Asunto/provisión & distribución , Medicina de Precisión , Conducta Cooperativa , Ciencia de los Datos/métodos , Ciencia de los Datos/tendencias , Conjuntos de Datos como Asunto/normas , Conjuntos de Datos como Asunto/estadística & datos numéricos , Prestación de Atención de Salud/métodos , Prestación de Atención de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Ensayos Analíticos de Alto Rendimiento/métodos , Ensayos Analíticos de Alto Rendimiento/estadística & datos numéricos , Humanos , Aprendizaje , Medicina de Precisión/métodos , Medicina de Precisión/estadística & datos numéricos , Análisis de Área Pequeña
12.
J Clin Epidemiol ; 115: 77-89, 2019 11.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31302205

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: Data Abstraction Assistant (DAA) is a software for linking items abstracted into a data collection form for a systematic review to their locations in a study report. We conducted a randomized cross-over trial that compared DAA-facilitated single-data abstraction plus verification ("DAA verification"), single data abstraction plus verification ("regular verification"), and independent dual data abstraction plus adjudication ("independent abstraction"). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This study is an online randomized cross-over trial with 26 pairs of data abstractors. Each pair abstracted data from six articles, two per approach. Outcomes were the proportion of errors and time taken. RESULTS: Overall proportion of errors was 17% for DAA verification, 16% for regular verification, and 15% for independent abstraction. DAA verification was associated with higher odds of errors when compared with regular verification (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.99-1.17) or independent abstraction (adjusted OR = 1.12; 95% CI: 1.03-1.22). For each article, DAA verification took 20 minutes (95% CI: 1-40) longer than regular verification, but 46 minutes (95% CI: 26 to 66) shorter than independent abstraction. CONCLUSION: Independent abstraction may only be necessary for complex data items. DAA provides an audit trail that is crucial for reproducible research.


Asunto(s)
Indización y Redacción de Resúmenes/métodos , Revisiones Sistemáticas como Asunto , Estudios Cruzados , Recolección de Datos , Humanos , Oportunidad Relativa , Distribución Aleatoria , Programas Informáticos , Adulto Joven
13.
Learn Health Syst ; 3(1): e10073, 2019 Jan.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31245596

RESUMEN

Introduction: Global data sharing is essential. This is the premise of the Academic Research Organization (ARO) Council, which was initiated in Japan in 2013 and has since been expanding throughout Asia and into Europe and the United States. The volume of data is growing exponentially, providing not only challenges but also the clear opportunity to understand and treat diseases in ways not previously considered. Harnessing the knowledge within the data in a successful way can provide researchers and clinicians with new ideas for therapies while avoiding repeats of failed experiments. This knowledge transfer from research into clinical care is at the heart of a learning health system. Methods: The ARO Council wishes to form a worldwide complementary system for the benefit of all patients and investigators, catalyzing more efficient and innovative medical research processes. Thus, they have organized Global ARO Network Workshops to bring interested parties together, focusing on the aspects necessary to make such a global effort successful. One such workshop was held in Austin, Texas, in November 2017. Representatives from Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, Europe, and the United States reported on their efforts to encourage data sharing and to use research to inform care through learning health systems. Results: This experience report summarizes presentations and discussions at the Global ARO Network Workshop held in November 2017 in Austin, TX, with representatives from Japan, Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, Europe, and the United States. Themes and recommendations to progress their efforts are explored. Standardization and harmonization are at the heart of these discussions to enable data sharing. In addition, the transformation of clinical research processes through disruptive innovation, while ensuring integrity and ethics, will be key to achieving the ARO Council goal to overcome diseases such that people not only live longer but also are healthier and happier as they age. Conclusions: The achievement of global learning health systems will require further exploration, consensus-building, funding aligned with incentives for data sharing, standardization, harmonization, and actions that support global interests for the benefit of patients.

14.
Med Care ; 57 Suppl 6 Suppl 2: S115-S120, 2019 06.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31095049

RESUMEN

Over the last decade, health information technology (IT) has dramatically transformed medical practice in the United States. On May 11-12, 2017, the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, in partnership with the National Science Foundation and the National Health IT Collaborative for the Underserved, convened a scientific workshop, "Addressing Health Disparities with Health Information Technology," with the goal of ensuring that future research guides potential health IT initiatives to address the needs of health disparities populations. The workshop examined patient, clinician, and system perspectives on the potential role of health IT in addressing health disparities. Attendees were asked to identify and discuss various health IT challenges that confront underserved communities and propose innovative strategies to address them, and to involve these communities in this process. Community engagement, cultural competency, and patient-centered care were highlighted as key to improving health equity, as well as to promoting scalable, sustainable, and effective health IT interventions. Participants noted the need for more research on how health IT can be used to evaluate and address the social determinants of health. Expanding public-private partnerships was emphasized, as was the importance of clinicians and IT developers partnering and using novel methods to learn how to improve health care decision-making. Finally, to advance health IT and promote health equity, it will be necessary to record and capture health disparity data using standardized terminology, and to continuously identify system-level deficiencies and biases.


Asunto(s)
Disparidades en el Estado de Salud , Informática Médica , Salud de las Minorías , Determinantes Sociales de la Salud , Prestación de Atención de Salud , Humanos , Estados Unidos
15.
17.
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth ; 6(10): e10291, 2018 Oct 11.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30309834

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: N-of-1 (individual comparison) trials are a promising approach for comparing the effectiveness of 2 or more treatments for individual patients; yet, few studies have qualitatively examined how patients use and make sense of their own patient-generated health data (PGHD) in the context of N-of-1 trials. OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to explore chronic pain patients' perceptions about the PGHD they compiled while comparing 2 chronic pain treatments and tracking their symptoms using a smartphone N-of-1 app in collaboration with their clinicians. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were recorded with 33 patients, a consecutive subset of the intervention group in a primary study testing the feasibility and effectiveness of the Trialist N-of-1 app. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and a descriptive thematic analysis was completed. RESULTS: Patients were enthusiastic about recording and accessing their own data. They valued sharing data with clinicians but also used their data independently. CONCLUSIONS: N-of-1 trials remain a promising approach to evidence-based decision making. Patients appear to value their roles as trial participants but place as much or more importance on the independent use of trial data as on comparative effectiveness results. Future efforts to design patient-centered N-of-1 trials might consider adaptable designs that maximize patient flexibility and autonomy while preserving a collaborative role with clinicians and researchers.

18.
JAMA Intern Med ; 178(10): 1368-1377, 2018 10 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30193253

RESUMEN

Importance: Individually designed single-patient multi-crossover (n-of-1) trials can facilitate tailoring of treatments directed at various conditions, including chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMSP) but are potentially burdensome, which may limit uptake in research and practice. Objectives: To determine whether patients randomized to participate in an n-of-1 trial supported by a mobile health (mHealth) app would experience less pain and improved global health, adherence, satisfaction, and shared decision making compared with patients assigned to usual care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial compared participation in an individualized, mHealth-supported n-of-1 trial vs usual care. The participating 215 patients had CMSP for at least 6 weeks, had a smartphone or tablet with a data plan, were enrolled in northern California from July 2014 through July 2016, and were followed for up to 1 year by 48 clinicians in academic, community, Veterans Affairs, and military settings. Interventions: Intervention patients met with their clinicians and used a desktop interface to select treatments and trial parameters for an n-of-1 trial comparing 2 pain-management regimens. The mHealth app provided reminders to take designated treatments on assigned days and to upload responses to daily questions on pain and treatment-associated adverse effects. Control patients received care as usual. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was change in the PROMIS (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System) pain-related interference 8-item short-form scale (full scale range, 41-78) from baseline to 6 months. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported pain intensity, overall health, analgesic adherence, trust in clinician, satisfaction with care, medication-related shared decision making, and, for the n-of-1 group only, participant engagement and experience. Results: Among 215 patients (108 randomized to the n-of-1 intervention and 107 to control), 102 (47%) were women, and the mean (SD) age was 55.5 (11.1) years. At the 6-month follow-up, pain interference was reduced in both groups, though there was no difference between the intervention and control groups (-1.36 points; 95% CI, -2.91 to 0.19 points; P = .09). There were no advantages in secondary outcomes for intervention patients vs control patients except for higher medication-related shared decision making at 6 months (between-group difference, 11.9 points; 95% CI, 2.6-21.2 points; P = .01). Among patients assigned to the n-of-1 group, 88% (n = 86) affirmed that the mHealth app could help people like them manage their pain. Conclusions and Relevance: In this population of patients with CMSP, mHealth-supported n-of-1 trials were feasible and associated with a satisfactory user experience, but n-of-1 trial participation did not significantly improve pain interference at 6 months vs usual care. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02116621.


Asunto(s)
Analgésicos/uso terapéutico , Dolor Crónico/terapia , Terapia por Ejercicio , Dolor Musculoesquelético/terapia , Teléfono Inteligente , Telemedicina , Adulto , Anciano , Dolor Crónico/tratamiento farmacológico , Estudios Cruzados , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Dolor Musculoesquelético/tratamiento farmacológico , Manejo del Dolor , Dimensión del Dolor , Calidad de Vida , Resultado del Tratamiento
20.
Syst Rev ; 5(1): 196, 2016 11 22.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27876082

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Data abstraction, a critical systematic review step, is time-consuming and prone to errors. Current standards for approaches to data abstraction rest on a weak evidence base. We developed the Data Abstraction Assistant (DAA), a novel software application designed to facilitate the abstraction process by allowing users to (1) view study article PDFs juxtaposed to electronic data abstraction forms linked to a data abstraction system, (2) highlight (or "pin") the location of the text in the PDF, and (3) copy relevant text from the PDF into the form. We describe the design of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) that compares the relative effectiveness of (A) DAA-facilitated single abstraction plus verification by a second person, (B) traditional (non-DAA-facilitated) single abstraction plus verification by a second person, and (C) traditional independent dual abstraction plus adjudication to ascertain the accuracy and efficiency of abstraction. METHODS: This is an online, randomized, three-arm, crossover trial. We will enroll 24 pairs of abstractors (i.e., sample size is 48 participants), each pair comprising one less and one more experienced abstractor. Pairs will be randomized to abstract data from six articles, two under each of the three approaches. Abstractors will complete pre-tested data abstraction forms using the Systematic Review Data Repository (SRDR), an online data abstraction system. The primary outcomes are (1) proportion of data items abstracted that constitute an error (compared with an answer key) and (2) total time taken to complete abstraction (by two abstractors in the pair, including verification and/or adjudication). DISCUSSION: The DAA trial uses a practical design to test a novel software application as a tool to help improve the accuracy and efficiency of the data abstraction process during systematic reviews. Findings from the DAA trial will provide much-needed evidence to strengthen current recommendations for data abstraction approaches. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered at National Information Center on Health Services Research and Health Care Technology (NICHSR) under Registration # HSRP20152269: https://wwwcf.nlm.nih.gov/hsr_project/view_hsrproj_record.cfm?NLMUNIQUE_ID=20152269&SEARCH_FOR=Tianjing%20Li . All items from the World Health Organization Trial Registration Data Set are covered at various locations in this protocol. Protocol version and date: This is version 2.0 of the protocol, dated September 6, 2016. As needed, we will communicate any protocol amendments to the Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health (JHBSPH) and Brown University. We also will make appropriate as-needed modifications to the NICHSR website in a timely fashion.


Asunto(s)
Indización y Redacción de Resúmenes , Programas Informáticos , Revisiones Sistemáticas como Asunto , Medicina Basada en la Evidencia/métodos , Humanos
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...