Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
An automated approach to extracting positive and negative clinical research results
0
Zitationen
5
Autoren
2022
Jahr
Abstract
Failure is common in clinical trials since the successful failures presented in negative results always indicate the ways that should not be taken. In this paper, we proposed an automated approach to extracting positive and negative clinical research results by introducing a PICOE (Population, Intervention, Comparation, Outcome, and Effect) framework to represent randomized controlled trials (RCT) reports, where E indicates the effect between a specific I and O. We developed a pipeline to extract and assign the corresponding statistical effect to a specific I-O pair from natural language RCT reports. The extraction models achieved a high degree of accuracy for ICO and E descriptive words extraction through two rounds of training. By defining a threshold of p-value, we find in all Covid-19 related intervention-outcomes pairs with statistical tests, negative results account for nearly 40%. We believe that this observation is noteworthy since they are extracted from the published literature, in which there is an inherent risk of reporting bias, preferring to report positive results rather than negative results. We provided a tool to systematically understand the current level of clinical evidence by distinguishing negative results from the positive results.
Ähnliche Arbeiten
The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
2021 · 86.337 Zit.
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement
2009 · 82.855 Zit.
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
1977 · 77.141 Zit.
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
2009 · 62.966 Zit.
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
2003 · 61.652 Zit.