Abstract State Machines 1988-1998: Commented ASM Bibliography

An annotated bibliography of papers which deal with or use Abstract State Machines (ASMs), as of January 1998.Comment: Also maintained as a BibTeX file at http://www.eecs.umich.edu/gasm

Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS) statement

<p>Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication.</p> <p>The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website (www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp).</p> <p>We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in five years.</p&gt

Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies: The PRISMA-DTA Statement.

This is the final version of the article. Available from American Medical Association via the DOI in this record.Importance: Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy synthesize data from primary diagnostic studies that have evaluated the accuracy of 1 or more index tests against a reference standard, provide estimates of test performance, allow comparisons of the accuracy of different tests, and facilitate the identification of sources of variability in test accuracy. Objective: To develop the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) diagnostic test accuracy guideline as a stand-alone extension of the PRISMA statement. Modifications to the PRISMA statement reflect the specific requirements for reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy studies and the abstracts for these reviews. Design: Established standards from the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network were followed for the development of the guideline. The original PRISMA statement was used as a framework on which to modify and add items. A group of 24 multidisciplinary experts used a systematic review of articles on existing reporting guidelines and methods, a 3-round Delphi process, a consensus meeting, pilot testing, and iterative refinement to develop the PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy guideline. The final version of the PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy guideline checklist was approved by the group. Findings: The systematic review (produced 64 items) and the Delphi process (provided feedback on 7 proposed items; 1 item was later split into 2 items) identified 71 potentially relevant items for consideration. The Delphi process reduced these to 60 items that were discussed at the consensus meeting. Following the meeting, pilot testing and iterative feedback were used to generate the 27-item PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy checklist. To reflect specific or optimal contemporary systematic review methods for diagnostic test accuracy, 8 of the 27 original PRISMA items were left unchanged, 17 were modified, 2 were added, and 2 were omitted. Conclusions and Relevance: The 27-item PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy checklist provides specific guidance for reporting of systematic reviews. The PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy guideline can facilitate the transparent reporting of reviews, and may assist in the evaluation of validity and applicability, enhance replicability of reviews, and make the results from systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies more useful.The research was supported by grant 375751 from the Canadian Institute for Health Research; funding from the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; funding from the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies Group; funding from the University of Ottawa Department of Radiology Research Stipend Program; and funding from the National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South West Peninsula

The structure of research questions in randomized-controlled trials in rehabilitation field

Objective The aim of this study is to assess whether and how PICO format is described to frame research questions in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) looking at effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions. Design A methodological study was conducted. RCTs in the rehabilitation field, published between July 1st, 2019 and December 31st, 2019 were included. The framing of the primary research question (RQ) from each trial was evaluated. Results Ninety-seven RCTs were included in the analysis. The most frequent framing of the primary RQ was as an \u201cobjective\u201d statement (55%) and in 33% of the articles this was stated as an \u201cobjective\u201d together with a \u201chypothesis\u201d description. All PICO elements were present in 55% of RQ, but only 49% have used the statement suggested by Cochrane. The results showed that the most frequent framing of primary RQ was \u201cobjective\u201d using all PICO elements, but few articles followed the statement suggested by Cochrane to describe them. Conclusion: our findings suggest that a specific item about the \u201cresearch question\u201d and the rationale that drove to the proposed design following the form suggested by Cochrane is included in the RCTRACK checklist

Investigating the attainment of optimum data quality for EHR Big Data: proposing a new methodological approach

The value derivable from the use of data is continuously increasing since some years. Both commercial and non-commercial organisations have realised the immense benefits that might be derived if all data at their disposal could be analysed and form the basis of decision taking. The technological tools required to produce, capture, store, transmit and analyse huge amounts of data form the background to the development of the phenomenon of Big Data. With Big Data, the aim is to be able to generate value from huge amounts of data, often in non-structured format and produced extremely frequently. However, the potential value derivable depends on general level of governance of data, more precisely on the quality of the data. The field of data quality is well researched for traditional data uses but is still in its infancy for the Big Data context. This dissertation focused on investigating effective methods to enhance data quality for Big Data. The principal deliverable of this research is in the form of a methodological approach which can be used to optimize the level of data quality in the Big Data context. Since data quality is contextual, (that is a non-generalizable field), this research study focuses on applying the methodological approach in one use case, in terms of the Electronic Health Records (EHR). The first main contribution to knowledge of this study systematically investigates which data quality dimensions (DQDs) are most important for EHR Big Data. The two most important dimensions ascertained by the research methods applied in this study are accuracy and completeness. These are two well-known dimensions, and this study confirms that they are also very important for EHR Big Data. The second important contribution to knowledge is an investigation into whether Artificial Intelligence with a special focus upon machine learning could be used in improving the detection of dirty data, focusing on the two data quality dimensions of accuracy and completeness. Regression and clustering algorithms proved to be more adequate for accuracy and completeness related issues respectively, based on the experiments carried out. However, the limits of implementing and using machine learning algorithms for detecting data quality issues for Big Data were also revealed and discussed in this research study. It can safely be deduced from the knowledge derived from this part of the research study that use of machine learning for enhancing data quality issues detection is a promising area but not yet a panacea which automates this entire process. The third important contribution is a proposed guideline to undertake data repairs most efficiently for Big Data; this involved surveying and comparing existing data cleansing algorithms against a prototype developed for data reparation. Weaknesses of existing algorithms are highlighted and are considered as areas of practice which efficient data reparation algorithms must focus upon. Those three important contributions form the nucleus for a new data quality methodological approach which could be used to optimize Big Data quality, as applied in the context of EHR. Some of the activities and techniques discussed through the proposed methodological approach can be transposed to other industries and use cases to a large extent. The proposed data quality methodological approach can be used by practitioners of Big Data Quality who follow a data-driven strategy. As opposed to existing Big Data quality frameworks, the proposed data quality methodological approach has the advantage of being more precise and specific. It gives clear and proven methods to undertake the main identified stages of a Big Data quality lifecycle and therefore can be applied by practitioners in the area. This research study provides some promising results and deliverables. It also paves the way for further research in the area. Technical and technological changes in Big Data is rapidly evolving and future research should be focusing on new representations of Big Data, the real-time streaming aspect, and replicating same research methods used in this current research study but on new technologies to validate current results

Risk Adjustment Measures and Outcome Measures for Prehospital Trauma Research: Recommendations from the Emergency Medical Services Outcomes Project (EMSOP)

Objectives:  The objectives were to conduct a comprehensive, systematic review of the literature for risk adjustment measures (RAMs) and outcome measures (OMs) for prehospital trauma research and to use a structured expert panel process to recommend measures for use in future emergency medical services (EMS) trauma outcomes research. Methods:  A systematic literature search and review was performed identifying the published studies evaluating RAMs and OMs for prehospital injury research. An explicit structured review of all articles pertaining to each measure was conducted using the previously established methodology developed by the Canadian Physiotherapy Association (“Physical Rehabilitation Outcome Measures”). Results:  Among the 4,885 articles reviewed, 96 RAMs and/or OMs were identified from the existing literature (January 1958 to February 2010). Only one measure, the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), currently meets Level 1 quality of evidence status and a Category 1 (strong) recommendation for use in EMS trauma research. Twelve RAMs or OMs received Category 2 status (promising, but not sufficient current evidence to strongly recommend), including the motor component of GCS, simplified motor score (SMS), the simplified verbal score (SVS), the revised trauma score (RTS), the prehospital index (PHI), EMS provider judgment, the revised trauma index (RTI), the rapid acute physiology score (RAPS), the rapid emergency medicine score (REMS), the field trauma triage (FTT), the pediatric triage rule, and the out‐of‐hospital decision rule for pediatrics. Conclusions:  Using a previously published process, a structured literature review, and consensus expert panel opinion, only the GCS can currently be firmly recommended as a specific RAM or OM for prehospital trauma research (along with core measures that have already been established and published). This effort highlights the paucity of reliable, validated RAMs and OMs currently available for outcomes research in the prehospital setting and hopefully will encourage additional, methodologically sound evaluations of the promising, Category 2 RAMs and OMs, as well as the development of new measures.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/87101/1/j.1553-2712.2011.01148.x.pd

English-written abstracts for Spanish publications: A challenge in the globalization of science

The preeminence of English as the scientific lingua franca, together with the ever-present publish-or-perish dilemma, has brought increasing concern on Spanish scientists striving to achieve international recognition. Spanish journal editors try to make their journals look as professional as possible, most of them peer reviewed and their abstracts are listed in the most important databases. However, the problem of language seems to be the issue around which the dissemination of their publications is centered. In this report we examine the English-written abstracts of the Spanish Journal of Finance and Accounting, their content and form, and whether or not they are persuasive enough to lure the researcher into reading the paper. While the abstract is considered the first point of contact with the researcher, the expected results will show a rather irregular rendering of the information and, in general, a defective composition of the abstracts, in addition to local issues discussed in their articles. These results suggest a poor dissemination and repercussion of the authors’ contribution worldwide.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis

Background: The aim was to identify and evaluate existing patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) for use in patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) to inform the selection for use in surgical practice. Methods: Two systematic reviews were conducted: a systematic review to identify valid, reliable and acceptable PROMs for patients with AAA and a qualitative evidence synthesis to assess the relevance to patients of the identified PROMs items. PROMs studies were evaluated for their psychometric properties using established assessment criteria and their methodological quality using the COSMIN checklist. Qualitative studies were synthesised using framework analysis and identified concepts were then triangulated using a triangulation protocol with the item concepts of the identified PROMs. Results: Four PROMs from three studies were identified in the first review; the SF-36, the Australian Vascular Quality of Life Index, the AneurysmDQoL and AneurysmSRQ. None of the identified PROMs had undergone a rigorous psychometric evaluation within the AAA population. Four studies were included in the qualitative synthesis, from which 28 concepts important to patients with an AAA were identified. The AneurysmDQoL and the AneurysmSRQ together provided the most comprehensive assessment of these concepts. Fear of rupture, control, ability to forget about the condition and size of aneurysm were all concepts identified in the qualitative studies but not covered by items on the identified PROMs. Conclusion: Further research is needed to develop PROMs that are reliable, valid and acceptable to patients for use in surgical practice for AAA

Pain assessment for people with dementia: a systematic review of systematic reviews of pain assessment tools.

BACKGROUND: There is evidence of under-detection and poor management of pain in patients with dementia, in both long-term and acute care. Accurate assessment of pain in people with dementia is challenging and pain assessment tools have received considerable attention over the years, with an increasing number of tools made available. Systematic reviews on the evidence of their validity and utility mostly compare different sets of tools. This review of systematic reviews analyses and summarises evidence concerning the psychometric properties and clinical utility of pain assessment tools in adults with dementia or cognitive impairment. METHODS: We searched for systematic reviews of pain assessment tools providing evidence of reliability, validity and clinical utility. Two reviewers independently assessed each review and extracted data from them, with a third reviewer mediating when consensus was not reached. Analysis of the data was carried out collaboratively. The reviews were synthesised using a narrative synthesis approach. RESULTS: We retrieved 441 potentially eligible reviews, 23 met the criteria for inclusion and 8 provided data for extraction. Each review evaluated between 8 and 13 tools, in aggregate providing evidence on a total of 28 tools. The quality of the reviews varied and the reporting often lacked sufficient methodological detail for quality assessment. The 28 tools appear to have been studied in a variety of settings and with varied types of patients. The reviews identified several methodological limitations across the original studies. The lack of a 'gold standard' significantly hinders the evaluation of tools' validity. Most importantly, the samples were small providing limited evidence for use of any of the tools across settings or populations. CONCLUSIONS: There are a considerable number of pain assessment tools available for use with the elderly cognitive impaired population. However there is limited evidence about their reliability, validity and clinical utility. On the basis of this review no one tool can be recommended given the existing evidence