Representing narrative evidence as clinical evidence logic statements

• Published in: JAMIA open 2022-07, Vol.5 (2), p.ooac024-ooac024
• Main Authors: Lacson, Ronilda, Eskian, Mahsa, Cochon, Laila, Gujrathi, Isha, Licaros, Andro, Zhao, Anna, Vetrano, Nicole, Schneider, Louise, Raja, Ali, Khorasani, Ramin
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Evidence-based medicine; Medical informatics; Research and Applications
• ISSN: 2574-2531; 2574-2531
• DOI: 10.1093/jamiaopen/ooac024

Objective Clinical evidence logic statements (CELS) are shareable knowledge artifacts in a semistructured “If-Then” format that can be used for clinical decision support systems. This project aimed to assess factors facilitating CELS representation. Materials and Methods We described CELS representation of clinical evidence. We assessed factors that facilitate representation, including authoring instruction, evidence structure, and educational level of CELS authors. Five researchers were tasked with representing CELS from published evidence. Represented CELS were compared with the formal representation. After an authoring instruction intervention, the same researchers were asked to represent the same CELS and accuracy was compared with that preintervention using McNemar’s test. Moreover, CELS representation accuracy was compared between evidence that is structured versus semistructured, and between CELS authored by specialty-trained versus nonspecialty-trained researchers, using χ2 analysis. Results 261 CELS were represented from 10 different pieces of published evidence by the researchers pre- and postintervention. CELS representation accuracy significantly increased post-intervention, from 20/261 (8%) to 63/261 (24%, P value