scholarly journals Classifying information-sharing methods: a citation-mining systematic review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Georgios Filippos Nikolaidis ◽  
Beth Woods ◽  
Stephen Palmer ◽  
Marta O Soares
Keyword(s):  
Information Sharing ◽  
Decision Problem ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Synthesis Methods ◽  
Health Care Decisions ◽  
Shared Information ◽  
Multivariate Relationships ◽  
Study Designs ◽  
Available Information ◽  
Frequent Problem

Abstract BackgroundSparse relative eectiveness evidence is a frequent problem in Health Technology Assessment(HTA). Where evidence directly pertaining to the decision problem is sparse, it may be feasible to expand theevidence-base to include studies that relate to the decision problem only indirectly: for instance, when there isno evidence on a comparator, evidence on other treatments of the same molecular class could be used;similarly, a decision on children may borrow-strength from evidence on adults. Usually, in HTA, such indirectevidence is either included by ignoring any dierences (`lumping`) or not included at all (`splitting`). However,a range of more sophisticated methods exists, primarily in the biostatistics literature. The objective of thisstudy is identify and classify the breadth of the available information-sharing methods.MethodsForwards and backwards citation-mining techniques were used on a set of seminal papers on thetopic of information-sharing. Papers were included if they specied (network) meta-analytic methods forcombining information from distinct populations, interventions, outcomes or study-designs.Results: Overall, 89 papers were included. A plethora of evidence synthesis methods have been used forinformation-sharing. Most papers (n = 78) described methods that shared information on relative treatmenteects. Amongst these, there was a strong emphasis on methods for information-sharing across multipleoutcomes (n = 39) and treatments (n = 23), with fewer papers focusing on study-designs (n = 10) orpopulations (n = 6). We categorise and discuss the methods under four 'core' relationships ofinformation-sharing: functional, exchangeability-based, prior-based and multivariate relationships, and explainthe assumptions made within each of these core approaches.ConclusionsThis study highlights the range of information-sharing methods available. These methods oftenimpose more moderate assumptions than lumping or splitting. Hence, the degree of information-sharing thatthey impose could potentially be considered more appropriate. Our identication of four `core` methods ofinformation-sharing allows for an improved understanding of the assumptions underpinning the dierentmethods. Further research is required to understand how the methods dier in terms of the strength of sharingthey impose and the implications of this for health care decisions.

scholarly journals Classifying information-sharing methods

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Georgios F. Nikolaidis ◽  
Beth Woods ◽  
Stephen Palmer ◽  
Marta O. Soares
Keyword(s):  
Information Sharing ◽  
Decision Problem ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Relative Effectiveness ◽  
Indirect Evidence ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Synthesis Methods ◽  
Shared Information ◽  
Multivariate Relationships ◽  
Study Designs

Abstract Background Sparse relative effectiveness evidence is a frequent problem in Health Technology Assessment (HTA). Where evidence directly pertaining to the decision problem is sparse, it may be feasible to expand the evidence-base to include studies that relate to the decision problem only indirectly: for instance, when there is no evidence on a comparator, evidence on other treatments of the same molecular class could be used; similarly, a decision on children may borrow-strength from evidence on adults. Usually, in HTA, such indirect evidence is either included by ignoring any differences (‘lumping’) or not included at all (‘splitting’). However, a range of more sophisticated methods exists, primarily in the biostatistics literature. The objective of this study is to identify and classify the breadth of the available information-sharing methods. Methods Forwards and backwards citation-mining techniques were used on a set of seminal papers on the topic of information-sharing. Papers were included if they specified (network) meta-analytic methods for combining information from distinct populations, interventions, outcomes or study-designs. Results Overall, 89 papers were included. A plethora of evidence synthesis methods have been used for information-sharing. Most papers (n=79) described methods that shared information on relative treatment effects. Amongst these, there was a strong emphasis on methods for information-sharing across multiple outcomes (n=42) and treatments (n=25), with fewer papers focusing on study-designs (n=23) or populations (n=8). We categorise and discuss the methods under four ’core’ relationships of information-sharing: functional, exchangeability-based, prior-based and multivariate relationships, and explain the assumptions made within each of these core approaches. Conclusions This study highlights the range of information-sharing methods available. These methods often impose more moderate assumptions than lumping or splitting. Hence, the degree of information-sharing that they impose could potentially be considered more appropriate. Our identification of four ‘core’ methods of information-sharing allows for an improved understanding of the assumptions underpinning the different methods. Further research is required to understand how the methods differ in terms of the strength of sharing they impose and the implications of this for health care decisions.

scholarly journals A systematic review and classification of information-sharing methods

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Georgios F. Nikolaidis ◽  
Beth Woods ◽  
Stephen Palmer ◽  
Marta O Soares
Keyword(s):  
Information Sharing ◽  
Decision Problem ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Relative Effectiveness ◽  
Indirect Evidence ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Synthesis Methods ◽  
Shared Information ◽  
Multivariate Relationships ◽  
Study Designs

Abstract Background: Sparse relative effectiveness evidence is a frequent problem in Health Technology Assessment (HTA). Where evidence directly pertaining to the decision problem is sparse, it may be feasible to expand the evidence-base to include studies that relate to the decision problem only indirectly: for instance, when there is no evidence on a comparator, evidence on other treatments of the same molecular class could be used; similarly, a decision on children may borrow-strength from evidence on adults. Usually, in HTA, such indirect evidence is either included by ignoring any differences (‘lumping‘) or not included at all (‘splitting‘). However, a range of more sophisticated methods exists, primarily in the biostatistics literature. The objective of this study is identify and classify the breadth of the available information-sharing methods. Methods: Forwards and backwards citation-mining techniques were used on a set of seminal papers on the topic of information-sharing. Papers were included if they specified (network) meta-analytic methods for combining information from distinct populations, interventions, outcomes or study-designs. Results: Overall, 89 papers were included. A plethora of evidence synthesis methods have been used for information-sharing. Most papers (n = 78) described methods that shared information on relative treatment effects. Amongst these, there was a strong emphasis on methods for information-sharing across multiple outcomes (n = 39) and treatments (n = 23), with fewer papers focusing on study-designs (n = 10) or populations (n = 6). We categorise and discuss the methods under four ’core’ relationships of information-sharing: functional, exchangeability-based, prior-based and multivariate relationships, and explain the assumptions made within each of these core approaches. Conclusions: This study highlights the range of information-sharing methods available. These methods often impose more moderate assumptions than lumping or splitting. Hence, the degree of information-sharing that they impose could potentially be considered more appropriate. Our identification of four ‘core‘ methods of information-sharing allows for an improved understanding of the assumptions underpinning the different methods. Further research is required to understand how the methods differ in terms of the strength of sharing they impose and the implications of this for health care decisions.

“From Tool to Agent”: The Evolution of (Cockpit) Automation and Its Impact on Human-Machine Coordination

1995 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-83 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nadine B. Sarter ◽  
David D. Woods
Keyword(s):  
Experimental Simulation ◽  
Early Generation ◽  
Timely Feedback ◽  
Transition Training ◽  
Glass Cockpit ◽  
And Behavior ◽  
Available Information ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Communicative Abilities ◽  
Frequent Problem

In a variety of domains, researchers have observed breakdowns in human-automation coordination and cooperation. One form of breakdown is a lack of mode awareness which can result in ‘automation surprises’. These are, in part, related to a lack of adequate feedback on system status and behavior. The need for effective and timely feedback has become even more pressing with the evolution of systems that operate at increasingly high levels of authority and autonomy. In the absence of improved feedback design, however, the gap between required and available information has widened. To explore the impact of this trend towards ‘strong yet silent’ machine agents, a line of research was conducted on pilot-automation coordination on the Airbus A-320, an aircraft that exemplifies these trends. This research involved a survey of pilots' line experiences with the A-320 automation, observations of transition training to the airplane, and an experimental simulation study on pilots' mode awareness and pilot-automation coordination. The results of this work indicate a trend from mode errors of commission (which represented a more frequent problem on early generation ‘glass cockpit’ aircraft) to errors of omission. In other words, pilots were more likely to fail to observe and interfere with uncommanded and undesired automation and aircraft behavior. Such errors of omission also seem to have played a role in recent incidents and accidents. They illustrate the need for improved communicative abilities in autonomous and powerful systems to enable them to actively support the coordination between human and machine.

scholarly journals Qualitative Evidence Synthesis: Where Are We at?

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. 160940692199327
Author(s):  
Kate Flemming ◽  
Jane Noyes
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Synthesis Methods ◽  
Qualitative Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Qualitative Evidence ◽  
Health And Social Care ◽  
Method Paper ◽  
Increasing Demand

Qualitative evidence syntheses (QES) have increased in prominence and profile over the last decade as a discrete set of methodologies to undertake systematic reviews of primary qualitative research in health and social care and in education. The findings from a qualitative evidence synthesis can enable a richer interpretation of a particular phenomenon, set of circumstances, or experiences than single primary qualitative research studies can achieve. Qualitative evidence synthesis methods were developed in response to an increasing demand from health and social professionals, policy makers, guideline developers and educationalists for review evidence that goes beyond “what works” afforded by systematic reviews of effectiveness. The increasing interest in the synthesis of qualitative research has led to methodological developments documented across a plethora of texts and journal articles. This “State of the Method” paper aims to bring together these methodological developments in one place, contextualizing advances in methods with exemplars to support readers in making choices in approach to a synthesis and aid understanding. The paper clarifies what a “qualitative evidence synthesis” is and explores its role, purpose and development. It details the kind of questions a QES can explore, the processes associated with a QES, including the methods for synthesis. The rational and methods for integrating a QES with systematic reviews of effectiveness are also detailed. Finally approaches reporting and recognition of what a “good” or rigorous QES look like are provided.

OP179 Quantitative Evidence Synthesis Methods For Assessing The Effectiveness Of Treatment Sequences For Clinical And Economic Decision-Making: Methodology Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 37 (S1) ◽  
pp. 4-4
Author(s):  
Ruth Lewis ◽  
Dyfrig Hughes ◽  
Alex Sutton ◽  
Clare Wilkinson
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Chronic Conditions ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Policy Decision ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Synthesis Methods ◽  
Economic Decision Making ◽  
Treatment Sequencing ◽  
Policy Decision Making ◽  
Treatment Sequences

IntroductionThe sequential use of alternative treatments for chronic conditions represents a complex, dynamic intervention pathway; previous treatment and patient characteristics affect both choice and effectiveness of subsequent treatments. Evidence synthesis methods that produce the least biased estimates of treatment-sequencing effects are required to inform reliable clinical and policy decision-making. A comprehensive review was conducted to establish what existing methods are available, outline the assumptions they make, and identify their shortcomings.MethodsThe review encompassed both meta-analytic techniques and decision-analytic modelling, any disease condition, and any type of treatment sequence, but not diagnostic tests, screening, or treatment monitoring. It focused on the estimation of clinical effectiveness and did not consider the impact of treatment sequencing on the estimation of costs or utility values.ResultsThe review included ninety-one studies. Treatment-sequencing is usually dealt with at the decision-modelling stage and is rarely addressed using evidence synthesis methodology for clinical effectiveness. Most meta-analyses are of discrete treatments, sometimes stratified by line of therapy. Prospective sequencing trials are scarce. In their absence, there is no single best way to evaluate treatment sequences, rather there is a range of approaches, each of which has advantages and disadvantages and is influenced by the evidence available and the decision problem. Due to the scarcity of data on sequential treatments, modelling studies generally apply simplifying assumptions to data on discrete treatments. A taxonomy for all possible assumptions was developed, providing a unique resource to aid the critique of decision-analytic models.ConclusionsThe evolution of network meta-analysis in HTA demonstrates that clinical and policy decision-making should account for the multiple treatments available for many chronic conditions. However, treatment-sequencing has yet to be accounted for within clinical evaluations. Economic modelling is often based on the simplifying assumption of treatment independence. This can lead to misrepresentation of the true level of uncertainty, potential bias in estimating the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of treatments and, eventually, the wrong decision.

scholarly journals CogTale: An online platform for the evaluation, synthesis and dissemination of evidence from cognitive interventions studies

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julieta Sabates ◽  
Sylvie Belleville ◽  
Mary Castellani ◽  
Tzvi Dwolatsky ◽  
Benjamin M. Hampstead ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Intervention Studies ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Research Synthesis ◽  
Cognitive Intervention ◽  
Synthesis Methods ◽  
Data Synthesis ◽  
Advanced Search ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are critical in health-related decision making, and are considered the gold standard in research synthesis methods. However, with new trials being regularly published and with the development of increasingly rigorous standards of data synthesis, systematic reviews often require much expertise and long periods of time to be completed. Automation of some of the steps of evidence synthesis productions is a promising improvement in the field, capable of reducing the time and costs associated with the process. This article describes the development and main characteristics of a novel online repository of cognitive intervention studies entitled Cognitive Treatments Article Library and Evaluation (CogTale). The platform is currently in a Beta Release phase, as it is still under development. However, it already contains over 70 studies, and the CogTale team is continuously coding and uploading new studies into the repository. Key features include advanced search options, the capability to generate meta-analyses, and an up-to-date display of relevant published studies.

scholarly journals Identifying stroke therapeutics from preclinical models: A protocol for a novel application of network meta-analysis

F1000Research ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manoj M. Lalu ◽  
Dean A. Fergusson ◽  
Wei Cheng ◽  
Marc T. Avey ◽  
Dale Corbett ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ischemic Stroke ◽  
Burden Of Illness ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Synthesis Methods ◽  
Preclinical Models ◽  
Ovid Medline ◽  
Scientific Meetings ◽  
Ischemia Testing

Introduction: Globally, stroke is the second leading cause of death. Despite the burden of illness and death, few acute interventions are available to patients with ischemic stroke. Over 1,000 potential neuroprotective therapeutics have been evaluated in preclinical models. It is important to use robust evidence synthesis methods to appropriately assess which therapies should be translated to the clinical setting for evaluation in human studies. This protocol details planned methods to conduct a systematic review to identify and appraise eligible studies and to use a network meta-analysis to synthesize available evidence to answer the following questions: in preclinical in vivo models of focal ischemic stroke, what are the relative benefits of competing therapies tested in combination with the gold standard treatment alteplase in (i) reducing cerebral infarction size, and (ii) improving neurobehavioural outcomes? Methods: We will search Ovid Medline and Embase for articles on the effects of combination therapies with alteplase. Controlled comparison studies of preclinical in vivo models of experimentally induced focal ischemia testing the efficacy of therapies with alteplase versus alteplase alone will be identified. Outcomes to be extracted include infarct size (primary outcome) and neurobehavioural measures. Risk of bias and construct validity will be assessed using tools appropriate for preclinical studies. Here we describe steps undertaken to perform preclinical network meta-analysis to synthesise all evidence for each outcome and obtain a comprehensive ranking of all treatments. This will be a novel use of this evidence synthesis approach in stroke medicine to assess pre-clinical therapeutics. Combining all evidence to simultaneously compare mutliple therapuetics tested preclinically may provide a rationale for the clinical translation of therapeutics for patients with ischemic stroke.  Dissemination: Review findings will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant scientific meetings to promote knowledge transfer. Registration: PROSPERO number to be submitted following peer review.

Cooperation and Free Riding in Cyber Security Information-Sharing Programs

2018 ◽  
pp. 309-324 ◽  
Author(s):  
Asmeret Bier Naugle ◽  
Austin Silva ◽  
Munaf Aamir
Keyword(s):  
Information Sharing ◽  
Cyber Security ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Free Riding ◽  
Cyber Attacks ◽  
Defense Strategies ◽  
Shared Information ◽  
Substantial Investment ◽  
Human Decision

Even with substantial investment in cyber defense, the risk of harm from cyber attacks is significant for many organizations. Multi-organization information-sharing programs have the potential to improve cyber security at relatively low cost by allowing organizations that face similar threats to share information on vulnerabilities, attacks, and defense strategies. The dynamics of an information-sharing program are likely to depend heavily on interactions between human decision makers. This article describes a system dynamics model of an information-sharing program. The model incorporates decision-making strategies of managers and cyber defenders in each participating organization. The model was used to assess how free-riding behavior is likely to affect the success of a multi-organization information-sharing program. Results shows that free riding may make information sharing more volatile and less beneficial early on, but other factors, including cost savings and the perceived utility of shared information, are likely to create success later in the time horizon.

scholarly journals The WHO-INTEGRATE evidence to decision framework version 1.0: integrating WHO norms and values and a complexity perspective

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. e000844 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eva A Rehfuess ◽  
Jan M Stratil ◽  
Inger B Scheel ◽  
Anayda Portela ◽  
Susan L Norris ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Guideline Development ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Societal Implications ◽  
Synthesis Methods ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Health Decision Making ◽  
Norms And Values ◽  
Health Decision

IntroductionEvidence-to-decision (EtD) frameworks intend to ensure that all criteria of relevance to a health decision are systematically considered. This paper, part of a series commissioned by the WHO, reports on the development of an EtD framework that is rooted in WHO norms and values, reflective of the changing global health landscape, and suitable for a range of interventions and complexity features. We also sought to assess the value of this framework to decision-makers at global and national levels, and to facilitate uptake through suggestions on how to prioritise criteria and methods to collect evidence.MethodsIn an iterative, principles-based approach, we developed the framework structure from WHO norms and values. Preliminary criteria were derived from key documents and supplemented with comprehensive subcriteria obtained through an overview of systematic reviews of criteria employed in health decision-making. We assessed to what extent the framework can accommodate features of complexity, and conducted key informant interviews among WHO guideline developers. Suggestions on methods were drawn from the literature and expert consultation.ResultsThe new WHO-INTEGRATE (INTEGRATe Evidence) framework comprises six substantive criteria—balance of health benefits and harms, human rights and sociocultural acceptability, health equity, equality and non-discrimination, societal implications, financial and economic considerations, and feasibility and health system considerations—and the meta-criterion quality of evidence. It is intended to facilitate a structured process of reflection and discussion in a problem-specific and context-specific manner from the start of a guideline development or other health decision-making process. For each criterion, the framework offers a definition, subcriteria and example questions; it also suggests relevant primary research and evidence synthesis methods and approaches to assessing quality of evidence.ConclusionThe framework is deliberately labelled version 1.0. We expect further modifications based on focus group discussions in four countries, example applications and input across concerned disciplines.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document