Evaluation of the informatician perspective: determining types of research papers preferred by clinicians

Characterizing physicians' information needs related to a gap in knowledge unmet by current evidence

OBJECTIVE

The study sought to explore information needs arising from a gap in clinicians' knowledge that is not met by current evidence and identify possible areas of use and target groups for a future clinical decision support system (CDSS), which will guide clinicians in cases where no evidence exists.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We interviewed 30 physicians in a large academic medical center, analyzed transcripts using deductive thematic analysis, and developed a set of themes of information needs related to a gap in knowledge unmet by current evidence. We conducted additional statistical analyses to identify the correlation between clinical experience, clinical specialty, settings of clinical care, and the characteristics of the needs.

RESULTS

This study resulted in a set of themes and subthemes of information needs arising from a gap in current evidence. Experienced physicians and inpatient physicians had more questions and the number of questions did not decline with clinical experience. The main areas of information needs included patients with comorbidities, elderly and children, new drugs, and rare disorders. To address these questions, clinicians most often used a commercial tool, guidelines, and PubMed. While primary care physicians preferred the commercial tool, specialty physicians sought more in-depth knowledge.

DISCUSSION

The current medical evidence appeared to be inadequate in covering specific populations such as patients with multiple comorbidities and elderly, and was sometimes irrelevant to complex clinical scenarios. Our findings may suggest that experienced and inpatient physicians would benefit from a CDSS that generates evidence in real time at the point of care.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that physicians had information needs, which arose from the gaps in current medical evidence. This study provides insights on how the CDSS that aims at addressing these needs should be designed.

When poorly conducted systematic reviews and meta-analyses can mislead: a critical appraisal and update of systematic reviews and meta-analyses examining the effects of probiotics in the treatment of functional constipation in children

BACKGROUND

Recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the efficacy of probiotics in the treatment of functional constipation in children have yielded conflicting results.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to critically review and update the evidence in this field by mapping all the steps involved against those reported in previous reviews, in an attempt to understand the nature of their conflicting results.

METHODS

Four literature databases, trial registries, and citations were searched through December 1, 2018. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the effects of probiotics compared with placebo or treatment as usual on defecation frequency [bowel movements (BMs)/wk] or treatment success rates in children with functional constipation. Independent reviewers extracted the data and assessed risk of bias in each RCT. Data were pooled with (inverse variance) random-effects models.

RESULTS

We identified 17 RCTs, of which 14 and 11 provided sufficient data to enable meta-analysis of the effects of probiotics compared with control on defecation frequency (n = 965) or treatment success (n = 835), respectively. When compared to (any) control intervention, probiotics did not significantly increase defecation frequency [weighted mean difference (WMD): 0.28 BMs/wk; 95% CI: -0.12, 0.69; P = 0.165] but were more efficacious in achieving treatment success (RR: 1.24; 95% CI: 1.03, 1.50; P = 0.024). These effects did not differ by type of control (i.e., active or inactive) intervention. However, in analyses confined to the RCTs that were free of high risk of bias (only 5), probiotics did not confer any beneficial effects on defecation frequency (WMD: -0.55 BMs/wk; 95% CI: -1.37, 0.26; P = 0.185) and achievement of treatment success (RR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.90, 1.13; P = 0.873), compared with control interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

The current evidence thus does not support the use of probiotics as a single or coadjuvant therapy for treatment of functional constipation in children and refutes recently published reviews reporting favorable effects of probiotics. Conflicting findings of previous reviews resulted from methodologic errors, highlighting the susceptibility of evidence synthesis to oversights in study selection, quality assessments, and data extraction and collation. This review was registered at PROSPERO as CRD42019119109.

Introduction: the International Conference on Intelligent Biology and Medicine (ICIBM) 2016: special focus on medical informatics and big data

In this editorial, we first summarize the 2016 International Conference on Intelligent Biology and Medicine (ICIBM 2016) held on December 8-10, 2016 in Houston, Texas, USA, and then briefly introduce the ten research articles included in this supplement issue. At ICIBM 2016, a special theme, "Medical Informatics and Big Data," was dedicated to the recent advances of data science in the medical domain. After peer review, ten articles were selected for this special issue, covering topics such as Knowledge and Data Personalization, Social Media Applications to Healthcare, Clinical Natural Language Processing, Patient Safety Analyses, and Data Mining Using Electronic Health Records.