Robert A. Greenes

BACKGROUND: The use of clinical decision support systems to facilitate the practice of evidence-based medicine promises to substantially improve health care quality. OBJECTIVE: To describe, on the basis of the proceedings of the Evidence and Decision Support track at the 2000 AMIA Spring Symposium, the research and policy challenges for capturing research and practice-based evidence in machine-interpretable repositories, and to present recommendations for accelerating the development and adoption of clinical decision support systems for evidence-based medicine. RESULTS: The recommendations fall into five broad areas--capture literature-based and practice-based evidence in machine--interpretable knowledge bases; develop maintainable technical and methodological foundations for computer-based decision support; evaluate the clinical effects and costs of clinical decision support systems and the ways clinical decision support systems affect and are affected by professional and organizational practices; identify and disseminate best practices for work flow-sensitive implementations of clinical decision support systems; and establish public policies that provide incentives for implementing clinical decision support systems to improve health care quality. CONCLUSIONS: Although the promise of clinical decision support system-facilitated evidence-based medicine is strong, substantial work remains to be done to realize the potential benefits.

In the assessment of the statistical properties of a diagnostic test, for example the sensitivity and specificity of the test, it is common to derive estimates from a sample limited to those cases for whom subsequent definitive disease verification is obtained. Omission of nonverified cases can seriously bias the estimates. In order to adjust the estimates it is necessary to make assumptions about the mechanism for selecting cases for verification. Methods for making the necessary adjustments can then be derived.

OBJECTIVES: Many groups are developing computer-interpretable clinical guidelines (CIGs) for use during clinical encounters. CIGs use "Task-Network Models" for representation but differ in their approaches to addressing particular modeling challenges. We have studied similarities and differences between CIGs in order to identify issues that must be resolved before a consensus on a set of common components can be developed. DESIGN: We compared six models: Asbru, EON, GLIF, GUIDE, PRODIGY, and PROforma. Collaborators from groups that created these models represented, in their own formalisms, portions of two guidelines: American College of Chest Physicians cough guidelines [correction] and the Sixth Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. MEASUREMENTS: We compared the models according to eight components that capture the structure of CIGs. The components enable modelers to encode guidelines as plans that organize decision and action tasks in networks. They also enable the encoded guidelines to be linked with patient data-a key requirement for enabling patient-specific decision support. RESULTS: We found consensus on many components, including plan organization, expression language, conceptual medical record model, medical concept model, and data abstractions. Differences were most apparent in underlying decision models, goal representation, use of scenarios, and structured medical actions. CONCLUSION: We identified guideline components that the CIG community could adopt as standards. Some of the participants are pursuing standardization of these components under the auspices of HL7.

OBJECTIVE: To allow exchange of clinical practice guidelines among institutions and computer-based applications. DESIGN: The GuideLine Interchange Format (GLIF) specification consists of GLIF model and the GLIF syntax. The GLIF model is an object-oriented representation that consists of a set of classes for guideline entities, attributes for those classes, and data types for the attribute values. The GLIF syntax specifies the format of the test file that contains the encoding. METHODS: Researchers from the InterMed Collaboratory at Columbia University, Harvard University (Brigham and Women's Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital), and Stanford University analyzed four existing guideline systems to derive a set of requirements for guideline representation. The GLIF specification is a consensus representation developed through a brainstorming process. Four clinical guidelines were encoded in GLIF to assess its expressivity and to study the variability that occurs when two people from different sites encode the same guideline. RESULTS: The encoders reported that GLIF was adequately expressive. A comparison of the encodings revealed substantial variability. CONCLUSION: GLIF was sufficient to model the guidelines for the four conditions that were examined. GLIF needs improvement in standard representation of medical concepts, criterion logic, temporal information, and uncertainty.