Methods Used to Compare Narrative Clinical Practice Guidelines: A Scoping Review

Mohammadreza Azarpira (1) , Akram Redjdal (1, 2) , Jacques Bouaud (1, 3) , Brigitte Seroussi (1, 4)

1 LIMICS - Laboratoire d'Informatique Médicale et Ingénierie des Connaissances en e-Santé
2 SU - Sorbonne Université
3 DRCI - Direction de la Recherche Clinique et de l'Innovation [AP-HP]
4 CHU Tenon [AP-HP]

Guideline-based clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) need the most recent evidence for reliable performance, making the provision of regularly updated clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) a major issue. Some international guidelines are renewed in short intervals and can be used for checking the status of given national guidelines with regard to the most recent evidence. Considering the volume of medical data and the number of CPGs published, computerized comparison of clinical guidelines can be an effective method. We performed a scoping review to evaluate the methods used for comparing two CPGs. We searched for methods for extracting CPG components and for methods used for comparing CPGs at different levels of abstraction. In each case, computerized and semi-computerized methods were recognized. Expert knowledge has yet a determinant role for assessing the comparisons, this role being more prominent for the extraction of semantic rules and the resolution of inconsistencies.

Mots clés: Supervised Machine Learning; Breast Cancer; Clinical Decision support systems; Clinical practice guidelines; ontology; natural language processing; machine learning

Domaines: Intelligence artificielle [cs.AI]

Mohammadreza Azarpira, Akram Redjdal, Jacques Bouaud, Brigitte Seroussi. Methods Used to Compare Narrative Clinical Practice Guidelines: A Scoping Review. Advances in Informatics, Management and Technology in Healthcare, IOS Press; IOS Press, 2022, Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, ⟨10.3233/SHTI220723⟩. ⟨hal-03767795⟩