Yearb Med Inform 2017; 26(01): 133-138
DOI: 10.15265/IY-2017-031
Section 5: Decision Support
Synopsis
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart

Contributions from the 2016 Literature on Clinical Decision Support

V. Koutkias
1   Institute of Applied Biosciences, Centre for Research & Technology Hellas, Thermi, Thessaloniki, Greece
,
J. Bouaud
2   AP-HP, Department of Clinical Research and Innovation, Paris, France
3   INSERM, Sorbonne Université, UPMC Univ Paris 06, Université Paris 13, Sorbonne Paris Cité, UMRS 1142, LIMICS, Paris, France
,
Section Editors of the IMIA Yearbook Section on Decision Support › Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

Publikationsdatum:
11. September 2017 (online)

Summary

Objectives: To summarize recent research and select the best papers published in 2016 in the field of computerized clinical decision support for the Decision Support section of the IMIA yearbook.

Methods: A literature review was performed by searching two bibliographic databases for papers related to clinical decision support systems (CDSSs). The aim was to identify a list of candidate best papers from the retrieved papers that were then peer-reviewed by external reviewers. A consensus meeting of the IMIA editorial team finally selected the best papers on the basis of all reviews and section editor evaluation.

Results: Among the 1,145 retrieved papers, the entire review process resulted in the selection of four best papers. The first paper describes machine learning models used to predict breast cancer multidisciplinary team decisions and compares them with two predictors based on guideline knowledge. The second paper introduces a linked-data approach for publication, discovery, and interoperability of CDSSs. The third paper assessed the variation in high-priority drug-drug interaction (DDI) alerts across 14 Electronic Health Record systems, operating in different institutions in the US. The fourth paper proposes a generic framework for modeling multiple concurrent guidelines and detecting their recommendation interactions using semantic web technologies.

Conclusions: The process of identifying and selecting best papers in the domain of CDSSs demonstrated that the research in this field is very active concerning diverse dimensions, such as the types of CDSSs, e.g. guideline-based, machine-learning-based, knowledge-fusion-based, etc., and addresses challenging areas, such as the concurrent application of multiple guidelines for comorbid patients, the resolution of interoperability issues, and the evaluation of CDSSs. Nevertheless, this process also showed that CDSSs are not yet fully part of the digitalized healthcare ecosystem. Many challenges remain to be faced with regard to the evidence of their output, the dissemination of their technologies, as well as their adoption for better and safer healthcare delivery.

 
  • References

  • 1 Jenders R. Advances in clinical decision support: Highlights of practice and the literature 2015-2016. Yearb Med Inform 2017; 125-32.
  • 2 Lamy JB, Séroussi B, Griffon N, Kerdelhué G, Jaulent MC, Bouaud J. Toward a formalization of the process to select IMIA Yearbook best papers. Methods Inf Med 2015; 54 (02) 135-44.
  • 3 Bouaud J, Koutkias V. Computerized Clinical Decision Support: Contributions from 2015. Yearb Med Inform 2016; Nov 10; (01) 170-7.
  • 4 Lin FP, Pokorny A, Teng C, Dear R, Epstein RJ. Computational prediction of multidisciplinary team decision-making for adjuvant breast cancer drug therapies: a machine learning approach. BMC Cancer 2016; Dec 1; 16 (01) 929.
  • 5 Marco-Ruiz L, Pedrinaci C, Maldonado JA, Panziera L, Chen R, Bellika JG. Publication, discovery and interoperability of Clinical Decision Support Systems: A Linked Data approach. J Biomed Inform 2016; Aug; 62: 243-64.
  • 6 McEvoy D, McEvoy DS, Sittig DF, Hickman TT, Aaron S, Ai A, Amato M. et al. Variation in high-priority drug-drug interaction alerts across institutions and electronic health records. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2017; Mar 1; 24 (02) 331-8.
  • 7 Zamborlini V, Hoekstra R, Da Silveira M, Pruski C, ten Teije A, van Harmelen F. Inferring recommendation interactions in clinical guidelines. Semantic Web 2016; 07 (04) 421-46.
  • 8 Wipfli R, Ehrler F, Bediang G, Bétrancourt M, Lovis C. How regrouping alerts in computerized physician order entry layout influences physicians’ prescription behavior: Results of a crossover randomized trial. JMIR Hum Factors 2016; Jun 2; 03 (01) e15.
  • 9 Heringa M, Siderius H, Floor-Schreudering A, de Smet PA, Bouvy ML. Lower alert rates by clustering of related drug interaction alerts. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2017; Jan; 24 (01) 54-9.
  • 10 Lilih S, Pereboom M, van der Hoeven RT, Mantel-Teeuwisse AK, Becker ML. Improving the effectiveness of drug safety alerts to increase adherence to the guideline for gastrointestinal prophylaxis. Int J Med Inform 2017; Jan; 97: 139-44.
  • 11 Amato MG, Salazar A, Hickman TT, Quist AJ, Volk LA, Wright A. et al. Computerized prescriber order entry-related patient safety reports: analysis of 2522 medication errors. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2017; Mar 1; 24 (02) 316-22.
  • 12 Botsis T, Jankosky C, Arya D, Kreimeyer K, Foster M, Pandey A. et al. Decision support environment for medical product safety surveillance. J Biomed Inform 2016; Dec; 64: 354-62.
  • 13 Wilk S, Michalowski M, Michalowski W, Rosu D, Carrier M, Kezadri-Hamiaz M. Comprehensive mitigation framework for concurrent application of multiple clinical practice guidelines. J Biomed Inform 2017; Feb; 66: 52-71.
  • 14 Kilsdonk E, Peute LW, Jaspers MW. Factors influencing implementation success of guideline-based clinical decision support systems: A systematic review and gaps analysis. Int J Med Inform 2017; Feb; 98: 56-64.
  • 15 Evans JP, Wilhelmsen KC, Berg J, Schmitt CP, Krishnamurthy A, Fecho K. et al. A new framework and prototype solution for clinical decision support and research in genomics and other data-intensive fields of medicine. EGEMS (Wash DC) 2016; Apr 19; 04 (01) 1198.
  • 16 Halpern Y, Horng S, Choi Y, Sontag D. Electronic medical record phenotyping using the anchor and learn framework. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2016; Jul; 23 (04) 731-40.
  • 17 Tsai CY, Wang SH, Hsu MH, Li YC. Do false positive alerts in naïve clinical decision support system lead to false adoption by physicians? A randomized controlled trial. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2016; Aug; 132: 83-91.
  • 18 Tham E, Swietlik M, Deakyne S, Hoffman JM, Grundmeier RW, Paterno MD. et al. Clinical decision support for a multicenter trial of pediatric head trauma: Development, implementation, and lessons learned. Appl Clin Inform 2016; Jun 15; 07 (02) 534-42.
  • 19 Middleton B, Sittig DF, Wright A. Clinical Decision Support: a 25 Year Retrospective and a 25 Year Vision. Yearb Med Inform 2016; Aug 2; (Suppl. 01) S103-16.