Managing the evidence infodemic: Automation approaches used for developing NICE COVID-19 living guidelines
Sood, M. R.; Sharp, S.; McFarlane, E.; Willans, R.; Hopkins, K.; Karpusheff, J.; Glen, F.
Show abstract
Background and ObjectivesThe National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) produces evidence-based guidance and advice for health, public health and social care practitioners in England and Wales. Between March 2020 and March 2022, NICE produced 24 COVID-19 guidelines to support healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. This article outlines three automation strategies NICE utilised to facilitate faster processing of evidence on COVID-19 and describes the value of those approaches when there is an increasing volume of evidence and demand on resources. Study Design and SettingText classification using machine learning, and regular expression-based pattern matching were used to automate screening of literature search results. Relevant clinical trials were tracked by automated monitoring of clinical trial databases and Pubmed. ResultsThe strategies discussed here brought considerable efficiencies in the processing time without impacting on quality compared to equivalent manual efforts. Additionally, the paper illustrates how to incorporate automation into established processes of the evidence management pipeline. ConclusionsWe have demonstrated through testing and use in live guideline development and surveillance that these are effective and low risk approaches at managing high volumes of evidence. Highlights- To illustrate how NICE utilised automation to handle the Covid-19 infodemic-managing the infodemic of evidence surveillance is a shared global issue. - To outline automation strategies to facilitate faster processing of evidence, especially when there is an increasing volume of evidence and demand on resources. - How automation can be included in established processes without disrupting business as usual operations. - Automation can take many forms, and depending on risk appetite, can be supplemented with manual checking. - Automation can be adopted easily with the right tools and techniques.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Investigator-initiated versus industry-sponsored trials – Visibility and relevance of randomized controlled trials in clinical practice guidelines (IMPACT) 95%
- Evaluation of SURUS: a Named Entity Recognition System to Extract Knowledge from Interventional Study Records 94%
- Creating an Indexing Scheme for Case Series Articles 94%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Catchii: empowering literature review screening in healthcare 97%
- Evaluation of the sensitivity, accuracy and currency of the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register for supporting rapid evidence synthesis production 95%
- Fast and frugal decision tree for the rapid critical appraisal of systematic reviews 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- An Informatics Consult approach for generating clinical evidence for treatment decisions 92%
- An Ontology-based Approach to Guide and Document Variable and Data Source Selection and Data Integration Process to Support Integrative Data Analysis in Cancer Outcomes Research 91%
- On the predictability of postoperative complications for cancer patients: a Portuguese cohort study 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Analysis of clinical trial registry entry histories using the novel R package cthist 95%
- Exploring scalable assessment methods for terminated trials in ClinicalTrials.gov: A cohort analysis of German and Californian trials 95%
- Common misconceptions held by health researchers when interpreting linear regression assumptions, a cross-sectional study 94%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.