Amos Cahan1, James J Cimino2. 1. IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, NY; National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD; Informatics Institute. 2. University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, MD.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A critical consideration when applying the results of a clinical trial to a particular patient is the degree of similarity of the patient to the trial population. However, similarity assessment rarely is practical in the clinical setting. Here, we explore means to support similarity assessment by clinicians. METHODS: A scale chart was developed to represent the distribution of reported clinical and demographic characteristics of clinical trial participant populations. Constructed for an individual patient, the scale chart shows the patient's similarity to the study populations in a graphical manner. A pilot test case was conducted using case vignettes assessed by clinicians. Two pairs of clinical trials were used, each addressing a similar clinical question. Scale charts were manually constructed for each simulated patient. Clinicians were asked to estimate the degree of similarity of each patient to the populations of a pair of trials. Assessors relied on either the scale chart, a summary table (aligning characteristics of 2 trial populations), or original trial reports. Assessment time and between-assessor agreement were compared. Population characteristics considered important by assessors were recorded. RESULTS: Six assessors evaluated 6 cases each. Using a visual scale chart, agreement between physicians was higher and the time required for similarity assessment was comparable. CONCLUSION: We suggest that further research is warranted to explore visual tools facilitating the choice of the most applicable clinical trial to a specific patient. Automating patient and trial population characteristics extraction is key to support this effort.
BACKGROUND: A critical consideration when applying the results of a clinical trial to a particular patient is the degree of similarity of the patient to the trial population. However, similarity assessment rarely is practical in the clinical setting. Here, we explore means to support similarity assessment by clinicians. METHODS: A scale chart was developed to represent the distribution of reported clinical and demographic characteristics of clinical trial participant populations. Constructed for an individual patient, the scale chart shows the patient's similarity to the study populations in a graphical manner. A pilot test case was conducted using case vignettes assessed by clinicians. Two pairs of clinical trials were used, each addressing a similar clinical question. Scale charts were manually constructed for each simulated patient. Clinicians were asked to estimate the degree of similarity of each patient to the populations of a pair of trials. Assessors relied on either the scale chart, a summary table (aligning characteristics of 2 trial populations), or original trial reports. Assessment time and between-assessor agreement were compared. Population characteristics considered important by assessors were recorded. RESULTS: Six assessors evaluated 6 cases each. Using a visual scale chart, agreement between physicians was higher and the time required for similarity assessment was comparable. CONCLUSION: We suggest that further research is warranted to explore visual tools facilitating the choice of the most applicable clinical trial to a specific patient. Automating patient and trial population characteristics extraction is key to support this effort.
Entities:
Keywords:
Data representation; clinical decision support systems; patient similarity; visual scale
Authors: Brian S Alper; Jason A Hand; Susan G Elliott; Scott Kinkade; Michael J Hauan; Daniel K Onion; Bernard M Sklar Journal: J Med Libr Assoc Date: 2004-10
Authors: Kalpana Gupta; Thomas M Hooton; Kurt G Naber; Björn Wullt; Richard Colgan; Loren G Miller; Gregory J Moran; Lindsay E Nicolle; Raul Raz; Anthony J Schaeffer; David E Soper Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2011-03-01 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Henry N Ginsberg; Marshall B Elam; Laura C Lovato; John R Crouse; Lawrence A Leiter; Peter Linz; William T Friedewald; John B Buse; Hertzel C Gerstein; Jeffrey Probstfield; Richard H Grimm; Faramarz Ismail-Beigi; J Thomas Bigger; David C Goff; William C Cushman; Denise G Simons-Morton; Robert P Byington Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-03-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Manimozhiyan Arumugam; Jeroen Raes; Eric Pelletier; Denis Le Paslier; Takuji Yamada; Daniel R Mende; Gabriel R Fernandes; Julien Tap; Thomas Bruls; Jean-Michel Batto; Marcelo Bertalan; Natalia Borruel; Francesc Casellas; Leyden Fernandez; Laurent Gautier; Torben Hansen; Masahira Hattori; Tetsuya Hayashi; Michiel Kleerebezem; Ken Kurokawa; Marion Leclerc; Florence Levenez; Chaysavanh Manichanh; H Bjørn Nielsen; Trine Nielsen; Nicolas Pons; Julie Poulain; Junjie Qin; Thomas Sicheritz-Ponten; Sebastian Tims; David Torrents; Edgardo Ugarte; Erwin G Zoetendal; Jun Wang; Francisco Guarner; Oluf Pedersen; Willem M de Vos; Søren Brunak; Joel Doré; María Antolín; François Artiguenave; Hervé M Blottiere; Mathieu Almeida; Christian Brechot; Carlos Cara; Christian Chervaux; Antonella Cultrone; Christine Delorme; Gérard Denariaz; Rozenn Dervyn; Konrad U Foerstner; Carsten Friss; Maarten van de Guchte; Eric Guedon; Florence Haimet; Wolfgang Huber; Johan van Hylckama-Vlieg; Alexandre Jamet; Catherine Juste; Ghalia Kaci; Jan Knol; Omar Lakhdari; Severine Layec; Karine Le Roux; Emmanuelle Maguin; Alexandre Mérieux; Raquel Melo Minardi; Christine M'rini; Jean Muller; Raish Oozeer; Julian Parkhill; Pierre Renault; Maria Rescigno; Nicolas Sanchez; Shinichi Sunagawa; Antonio Torrejon; Keith Turner; Gaetana Vandemeulebrouck; Encarna Varela; Yohanan Winogradsky; Georg Zeller; Jean Weissenbach; S Dusko Ehrlich; Peer Bork Journal: Nature Date: 2011-04-20 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Sarah T Hawley; Brian Zikmund-Fisher; Peter Ubel; Aleksandra Jancovic; Todd Lucas; Angela Fagerlin Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2008-08-27