Disseminating the best available evidence: New challenges in public reporting of health care

As a direct benefit of the Health Care Reform Act (2010), concerted effort has been deployed to define and characterize the process by which the best available evidence for diagnosis or treatment intervention prognosis can be obtained. The science of research synthesis in health care has established the systematic research protocol by which randomized clinical trials and other clinical studies must be reviewed and compared for the level and quality of the evidence presented, as well as the consensus of the best available evidence synthesized and shared. This process of systematic review yields a reliable and valid approach in comparing different interventions and strategies to prevent, diagnose, treat and monitor health conditions in terms of efficacy, and or of effectiveness. The resulting bioinformation outcome of comparative effectiveness and efficacy research review of the available clinical data is expressed as a consensus of the best available evidence, which finds its way in evidence-based clinical practice guidelines, standards of care and eventually, in policies: hence, the acronym CEERAP (comparative effectiveness and efficacy review and policy). The methodological and the procedural criteria that determine and regulate the public reporting dissemination of this sort of bioinformation, and the extent of benefit to the patient's health literacy, which have remained a bit more elusive to this date, are investigated and discussed in this paper

Large expert-curated database for benchmarking document similarity detection in biomedical literature search

Document recommendation systems for locating relevant literature have mostly relied on methods developed a decade ago. This is largely due to the lack of a large offline gold-standard benchmark of relevant documents that cover a variety of research fields such that newly developed literature search techniques can be compared, improved and translated into practice. To overcome this bottleneck, we have established the RElevant LIterature SearcH consortium consisting of more than 1500 scientists from 84 countries, who have collectively annotated the relevance of over 180 000 PubMed-listed articles with regard to their respective seed (input) article/s. The majority of annotations were contributed by highly experienced, original authors of the seed articles. The collected data cover 76% of all unique PubMed Medical Subject Headings descriptors. No systematic biases were observed across different experience levels, research fields or time spent on annotations. More importantly, annotations of the same document pairs contributed by different scientists were highly concordant. We further show that the three representative baseline methods used to generate recommended articles for evaluation (Okapi Best Matching 25, Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency and PubMed Related Articles) had similar overall performances. Additionally, we found that these methods each tend to produce distinct collections of recommended articles, suggesting that a hybrid method may be required to completely capture all relevant articles. The established database server located at https://relishdb.ict.griffith.edu.au is freely available for the downloading of annotation data and the blind testing of new methods. We expect that this benchmark will be useful for stimulating the development of new powerful techniques for title and title/abstract-based search engines for relevant articles in biomedical research.Peer reviewe

Disseminating the best available evidence: New challenges in public reporting of health care.

As a direct benefit of the Health Care Reform Act (2010), concerted effort has been deployed to define and characterize the process by which the best available evidence for diagnosis or treatment intervention prognosis can be obtained. The science of research synthesis in health care has established the systematic research protocol by which randomized clinical trials and other clinical studies must be reviewed and compared for the level and quality of the evidence presented, as well as the consensus of the best available evidence synthesized and shared. This process of systematic review yields a reliable and valid approach in comparing different interventions and strategies to prevent, diagnose, treat and monitor health conditions in terms of efficacy, and or of effectiveness. The resulting bioinformation outcome of comparative effectiveness and efficacy research review of the available clinical data is expressed as a consensus of the best available evidence, which finds its way in evidence-based clinical practice guidelines, standards of care and eventually, in policies: hence, the acronym CEERAP (comparative effectiveness and efficacy review and policy). The methodological and the procedural criteria that determine and regulate the public reporting dissemination of this sort of bioinformation, and the extent of benefit to the patient's health literacy, which have remained a bit more elusive to this date, are investigated and discussed in this paper

Marquette Literary Review, Issue 13

Table of contents [cover] Andy Mayer, “Poet, Bound” 5 Margot Zamberlin, “Under the Rhododendron” 6 Lauren Demasek, “Mind Waves” 7 Will Scheueman, “At Home” 10 Jacob Riyeff, “Deer Camp” 12 Nikita Deep, “Hiraeth Lake” 13 Kayla DiFranco “An Ode to My Love” 14 Tommy Donahue, “Just Another Stat” 15 Olivia Cimino “A Full Swing” 17 Kelly Kennedy, “Winnie” 18 Meghan King, “Take Me There” 19 Lauren Demasek, “Soul of the Sea” 21 Sadaf Nasir, “Crystal Clear” 22 Grace Lambertson, “Fulfillment” 24 Peter Spaulding “Avylon Landing” 28 Sadaf Nasir, “Baldie” 29 Maggie Miller “The Charcoal Sky” 31 Nikki Deep, “Lost City” 32 Urwa Ahmad, “Pour Over” 34 Claire Carlson, “Moon Jelly” 35 Ross Bravo, “Warmth” 36 Hailey Wellner, “Our Past Lives” 37 Ryan Hagan, “Dead Weight Walking, or Trudge of the Somber Tumult” 39 Mia Gleason, “The Creek” 41 Andy Mayer, “Wilderness” 42 Ryan Hagan, “Auntie” 45 Sarah Aaron, “Starlit Sisters” 47 Spencer Kilapatrick, “The Loving Cup” 48 Lauren Demasek, “Sublime Dream” 49 Jack Murphy, “An African Serpent’s Song” 50 Sarah Aaron, “August” 56 Kelly Kennedy, “Elvis Blues” 57 Urwa Ahmad, “Other” 58 Margarita Buitrago, “Haughty Happenings” 59 Saul Lopez, “El Rey” 61 Riley Knapp, “Mother Earth and Father Yhwh” 63 Riley Ellison, “62523” 65 Ryan Hagan, “Snow Dune, Ice Tunnel” 66 Eren Joyce, “xolotl” 67 Kelsie Kasky, “But Let Them Fly” 68 Georgette Kouassi, “At Your Side” 69 Mia Gleason, “Mask of Art” 70 Jannea Thomason, “Condolences” 71 Ryan Hagan, “A Clockwork Orange” 72 Hailey Whetten, “A Child’s Brain” 75 Oluwappelumi Oguntade, “Dandy” 77 Jessica Diebold, “He Died in His Dreams” 79 Nikki Deep, “Unconditional” 80 Sarah Aaron, “Amber Summer Sunday” 81 Sadaf Nasir, “Fort Jefferson

Challenges in assessing the efficacy of systemic corticosteroids for severe wheezing episodes in preschool children

This letter addresses the controversial issue of the use of oral corticosteroids during wheezing exacerbations in preschool-aged children by demonstrating findings of a prematurely terminated multi-center clinical trial, discussing lessons learned, and suggesting future directions