Literature DB >> 20496021

Computational ontologies in orthopaedic surgery.

Ricardo Pietrobon1, Amrapali Zaveri, Luciana Cofiel, Jacson Barros, Jatin Shah.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Information Technology (IT) plays an important role in storing and collating the vast amounts of healthcare data. However, analyzing and integrating this data to extract useful information is difficult due to the heterogeneous, siloed, disparate, and unstructured nature of the data. WHERE ARE WE NOW?: Attempts to standardize data reporting by establishing reporting standards, checklists and guidelines have not been optimal. Moreover, efforts to integrate data through the use of registries, data sharing networks, vocabularies and data standards have also yielded limited results. These efforts, when applied to orthopaedics, where theoretical knowledge is scattered over subspecialties, make it a cognitively challenging and tedious process. WHERE DO WE NEED TO GO?: Implementing data standardization is an important step towards homogenizing the data so that it can be integrated. Once integrated, the next step would be data analysis for information extraction. This information would be useful in answering important questions, especially in orthopaedic clinical practice and research, and could even help optimize methodologies in the education field. HOW DO WE GET THERE?: With the ability to describe concepts in a standardized manner and define existing interrelationships, ontologies are a potential solution. They assist in standardizing and integrating data and also impart strong inferential capabilities at a granular level. When applied to orthopaedics, they can standardize data collection, link data sources, generate knowledge based on the assumptions present in the interlinked data, thus answering important questions regarding orthopaedic clinical practice, research and education.

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20496021      PMCID: PMC3049624          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-010-1382-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  18 in total

1.  The quality of reporting in diagnostic test research: getting better, still not optimal.

Authors:  Patrick M M Bossuyt
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 8.327

Review 2.  Reporting in randomized clinical trials improved after adoption of the CONSORT statement.

Authors:  Robert L Kane; Jye Wang; Judith Garrard
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2006-10-02       Impact factor: 6.437

3.  The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.

Authors:  Erik von Elm; Douglas G Altman; Matthias Egger; Stuart J Pocock; Peter C Gøtzsche; Jan P Vandenbroucke
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 6.437

4.  Quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies: no change since STARD statement publication--before-and-after study.

Authors:  Nancy L Wilczynski
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Federated access to heterogeneous information resources in the Neuroscience Information Framework (NIF).

Authors:  Amarnath Gupta; William Bug; Luis Marenco; Xufei Qian; Christopher Condit; Arun Rangarajan; Hans Michael Müller; Perry L Miller; Brian Sanders; Jeffrey S Grethe; Vadim Astakhov; Gordon Shepherd; Paul W Sternberg; Maryann E Martone
Journal:  Neuroinformatics       Date:  2008-10-29

6.  Lessons learned from adapting a generic narrative diabetic-foot guideline to an institutional decision-support system.

Authors:  Mor Peleg; Dongwen Wang; Adriana Fodor; Sagi Keren; Eddy Karnieli
Journal:  Stud Health Technol Inform       Date:  2008

7.  Real-time updates of meta-analyses of HIV treatments supported by a biomedical ontology.

Authors:  Chad Cook; Maureen Hannley; Jan K Richardson; John Michon; Matthew Harker; Ricardo Pietrobon
Journal:  Account Res       Date:  2007 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.622

8.  The guideline interchange format: a model for representing guidelines.

Authors:  L Ohno-Machado; J H Gennari; S N Murphy; N L Jain; S W Tu; D E Oliver; E Pattison-Gordon; R A Greenes; E H Shortliffe; G O Barnett
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  1998 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 4.497

9.  Following 411 Cochrane protocols to completion: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Andrea C Tricco; Jamie Brehaut; Maggie H Chen; David Moher
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2008-11-10       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Collaborative research: accomplishments & potential.

Authors:  Klea Katsouyanni
Journal:  Environ Health       Date:  2008-01-21       Impact factor: 5.984

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.