Difference between revisions of "RiskEvidenceSynthesis FHIR Resource Proposal"
BrianAlper (talk | contribs) |
(migrate to Confluence) |
||
| (18 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<div class="messagebox cleanup metadata"> | <div class="messagebox cleanup metadata"> | ||
| − | <div style="float: left;">[[Image:OpenHotTopic.GIF|35px| ]]</div> | + | Current version: https://confluence.hl7.org/display/FHIR/RiskEvidenceSynthesis+FHIR+Resource+Proposal<div style="float: left;">[[Image:OpenHotTopic.GIF|35px| ]]</div> |
<div style="background:#F0F0F0"> | <div style="background:#F0F0F0"> | ||
This page documents a [[:category:Pending FHIR Resource Proposal|Pending]] [[:category:FHIR Resource Proposal|FHIR Resource Proposal]] | This page documents a [[:category:Pending FHIR Resource Proposal|Pending]] [[:category:FHIR Resource Proposal|FHIR Resource Proposal]] | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| − | = | + | =RiskEvidenceSynthesis= |
<!-- Resource names should meet the following characteristics: | <!-- Resource names should meet the following characteristics: | ||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
==Committee Approval Date:== | ==Committee Approval Date:== | ||
| − | June 22, 2018 | + | |
| + | *Initial PSS: June 22, 2018 | ||
| + | *CDS WG: September 12, 2018 | ||
==Contributing or Reviewing Work Groups== | ==Contributing or Reviewing Work Groups== | ||
<!-- Additional work groups that may have an interest in contributing to, or reviewing the content of the resource (optional) --> | <!-- Additional work groups that may have an interest in contributing to, or reviewing the content of the resource (optional) --> | ||
| − | * Clinical Decision Support | + | *Clinical Decision Support |
| − | * Clinical Quality Information | + | *Clinical Quality Information |
| − | * Biomedical Research and Regulation | + | *Biomedical Research and Regulation |
==FHIR Resource Development Project Insight ID== | ==FHIR Resource Development Project Insight ID== | ||
| Line 59: | Line 61: | ||
As a rule, resources should encompass all of these aspects. | As a rule, resources should encompass all of these aspects. | ||
--> | --> | ||
| + | The scope of the RiskEvidenceSynthesis resource is to describe the likelihood of an outcome in a population with an exposure where the risk estimate is derived from the combination of research studies. Risk estimates are not effects and do not represent a difference between exposure states. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Expressing risk estimates is done throughout reporting of biomedical research, systematic reviews, and clinical reference across all disciplines. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Risk estimates as a "synthesis" of research studies is a different concept for risk estimation than risk estimates for an individual person. | ||
==RIM scope== | ==RIM scope== | ||
| Line 78: | Line 85: | ||
* Have the characteristics of high cohesion & low coupling – need to explore whether coupling is good some places, not elsewhere – layers from Bo’s document | * Have the characteristics of high cohesion & low coupling – need to explore whether coupling is good some places, not elsewhere – layers from Bo’s document | ||
--> | --> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Across the evidence-based medicine community (hundreds of thousands of people communicating the results of healthcare research through systematic reviews and expressing the findings from a body of evidence), the risk estimate synthesized from a body of evidence is the primary method of expressing quantitative results. Standardization is necessary to support interoperability across the evidence-based medicine domain. | ||
==Expected implementations== | ==Expected implementations== | ||
<!--Key resources are justified by CCDA, for resources not deemed "key", what interest is there by implementers in using this particular resource. Provide named implementations if possible - ideally provide multiple independent implementations. --> | <!--Key resources are justified by CCDA, for resources not deemed "key", what interest is there by implementers in using this particular resource. Provide named implementations if possible - ideally provide multiple independent implementations. --> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Many knowledge producers who express the biomedical research community knowledge will be the implementers using this resources. Examples of these knowledge producers include Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Cochrane, Duodecim Medical Publications Ltd (from the Finnish Medical Society), EBSCO Health, MAGIC (stands for Making GRADE the Irresistible Choice), and numerous guideline development organizations. | ||
==Content sources== | ==Content sources== | ||
| Line 88: | Line 99: | ||
Are there any source specifications that you wish to consult but are concerned about access to or expertise to consider? --> | Are there any source specifications that you wish to consult but are concerned about access to or expertise to consider? --> | ||
| + | |||
| + | None expected beyond the standard source specifications. However, the method for expressing citations (eg referring to a publication) is not yet defined and may require additional source specifications. | ||
==Example Scenarios== | ==Example Scenarios== | ||
<!-- Provide a listing of the types of scenarios to be represented in the examples produced for this resource. They should demonstrate the full scope of the resource and allow exercising of the resources capabilities (full element coverage, inclusion & omission of optional elements, repeating and singleton repeating elements, etc.) --> | <!-- Provide a listing of the types of scenarios to be represented in the examples produced for this resource. They should demonstrate the full scope of the resource and allow exercising of the resources capabilities (full element coverage, inclusion & omission of optional elements, repeating and singleton repeating elements, etc.) --> | ||
| + | |||
| + | EXAMPLE 1 IN THE CONTEXT OF SUPPORTING AN EFFECT ESTIMATE SYNTHESIS | ||
| + | |||
| + | A systematic review and meta-analysis combines 17 trials comparing Superdrug against Placebo in 12,356 study participants with Stressitis and finds that Superdrug reduces the Stressiness Score by a mean of 4.6 points but increases headache by 50% (ie 4% of people taking Placebo and 6% of people taking Superdrug had a headache). | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | The effect estimates that may be reported from this example include: | ||
| + | |||
| + | *Mean reduction of 4.6 points in a score | ||
| + | *Relative risk increase of 50% (or risk ratio 1.5) for the risk of headache | ||
| + | *Absolute risk increase of 2% (or risk difference 0.02) for the risk of headache | ||
| + | |||
| + | The risk estimates that may be reported could include: | ||
| + | |||
| + | *with Superdrug -- mean Stressiness score of 13.2, and risk of headache of 6% | ||
| + | *with Placebo -- mean Stressiness score of 17.8, and risk of headache of 4% | ||
| + | |||
| + | The RiskEvidenceSynthesis resource describes: | ||
| + | |||
| + | *the point estimate for the risk or specific value with one exposure (without comparison to or difference from an alternative exposure) | ||
| + | *classification of the risk type (continuous or dichotomous, mean, median, proportion, etc.) | ||
| + | *a precision estimate (such as 95% confidence intervals) | ||
| + | *rating of certainty of the risk estimate | ||
| + | *descriptions of the population (eg Stressitis), exposure (eg Superdrug or Placebo), and outcome (eg. Stressiness Score, or risk of headache) that the risk estimate is about | ||
| + | *descriptions of the source of the risk estimate (eg author, citation, type of research, sample size) | ||
| + | |||
| + | EXAMPLE 2 IN THE CONTEXT OF RISK ESTIMATE AS PRIMARY FOCUS | ||
| + | |||
| + | A systematic review and meta-analysis combines 13 studies reporting the risk of Tuberculosis in people with HIV Infection who are exposed to Homelessness. The focus is determining the risk (eg is this a high-risk group for screening?) rather than the measure of the effect of homelessness. | ||
==Resource Relationships== | ==Resource Relationships== | ||
| Line 103: | Line 145: | ||
Reference to resources is really only relevant at the "same or higher level" (Bo – fix this wording) | Reference to resources is really only relevant at the "same or higher level" (Bo – fix this wording) | ||
--> | --> | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | The RiskEvidenceSynthesis resource will reference: | ||
| + | |||
| + | *PicoElementDefinition | ||
| + | *citation (an expected resource for future proposal) | ||
==Resource Boundaries== | ==Resource Boundaries== | ||
| Line 109: | Line 157: | ||
Are we confident existing implementations will be able to make the distinction? --> | Are we confident existing implementations will be able to make the distinction? --> | ||
| + | |||
| + | To be determined if implementers have questions that need explanations to support distinction and clarification. | ||
| + | |||
| + | EffectEvidenceSynthesis is about the difference (or "effect") between an exposure and alternative exposure state on an outcome in a population. RiskEvidenceSynthesis is about the "risk" of an outcome with an exposure state in a population. RiskEvidenceSytnhesis does not include an alternative exposure state of difference between states. | ||
==Timelines== | ==Timelines== | ||
<!-- Indicate the target date for having the resource complete from a committee perspective and ready for vetting and voting --> | <!-- Indicate the target date for having the resource complete from a committee perspective and ready for vetting and voting --> | ||
| + | |||
| + | First STU Ballot 2019 May | ||
==gForge Users== | ==gForge Users== | ||
<!-- Identify the userids who will require commit access to gForge to maintain the resource. (Ensure all users have registered for gForge.) --> | <!-- Identify the userids who will require commit access to gForge to maintain the resource. (Ensure all users have registered for gForge.) --> | ||
| + | |||
| + | brynrhodes (github user) | ||
| + | |||
| + | KhalidShahin-EBSCO (github user) | ||
==When Resource Proposal Is Complete== | ==When Resource Proposal Is Complete== | ||
Latest revision as of 15:28, 31 October 2019
This page documents a Pending FHIR Resource Proposal
Contents
- 1 RiskEvidenceSynthesis
- 1.1 Owning work group name
- 1.2 Committee Approval Date:
- 1.3 Contributing or Reviewing Work Groups
- 1.4 FHIR Resource Development Project Insight ID
- 1.5 Scope of coverage
- 1.6 RIM scope
- 1.7 Resource appropriateness
- 1.8 Expected implementations
- 1.9 Content sources
- 1.10 Example Scenarios
- 1.11 Resource Relationships
- 1.12 Resource Boundaries
- 1.13 Timelines
- 1.14 gForge Users
- 1.15 When Resource Proposal Is Complete
- 1.16 FMG Notes
RiskEvidenceSynthesis
Owning work group name
Committee Approval Date:
- Initial PSS: June 22, 2018
- CDS WG: September 12, 2018
Contributing or Reviewing Work Groups
- Clinical Decision Support
- Clinical Quality Information
- Biomedical Research and Regulation
FHIR Resource Development Project Insight ID
1422
Scope of coverage
The scope of the RiskEvidenceSynthesis resource is to describe the likelihood of an outcome in a population with an exposure where the risk estimate is derived from the combination of research studies. Risk estimates are not effects and do not represent a difference between exposure states.
Expressing risk estimates is done throughout reporting of biomedical research, systematic reviews, and clinical reference across all disciplines.
Risk estimates as a "synthesis" of research studies is a different concept for risk estimation than risk estimates for an individual person.
RIM scope
Resource appropriateness
Across the evidence-based medicine community (hundreds of thousands of people communicating the results of healthcare research through systematic reviews and expressing the findings from a body of evidence), the risk estimate synthesized from a body of evidence is the primary method of expressing quantitative results. Standardization is necessary to support interoperability across the evidence-based medicine domain.
Expected implementations
Many knowledge producers who express the biomedical research community knowledge will be the implementers using this resources. Examples of these knowledge producers include Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Cochrane, Duodecim Medical Publications Ltd (from the Finnish Medical Society), EBSCO Health, MAGIC (stands for Making GRADE the Irresistible Choice), and numerous guideline development organizations.
Content sources
None expected beyond the standard source specifications. However, the method for expressing citations (eg referring to a publication) is not yet defined and may require additional source specifications.
Example Scenarios
EXAMPLE 1 IN THE CONTEXT OF SUPPORTING AN EFFECT ESTIMATE SYNTHESIS
A systematic review and meta-analysis combines 17 trials comparing Superdrug against Placebo in 12,356 study participants with Stressitis and finds that Superdrug reduces the Stressiness Score by a mean of 4.6 points but increases headache by 50% (ie 4% of people taking Placebo and 6% of people taking Superdrug had a headache).
The effect estimates that may be reported from this example include:
- Mean reduction of 4.6 points in a score
- Relative risk increase of 50% (or risk ratio 1.5) for the risk of headache
- Absolute risk increase of 2% (or risk difference 0.02) for the risk of headache
The risk estimates that may be reported could include:
- with Superdrug -- mean Stressiness score of 13.2, and risk of headache of 6%
- with Placebo -- mean Stressiness score of 17.8, and risk of headache of 4%
The RiskEvidenceSynthesis resource describes:
- the point estimate for the risk or specific value with one exposure (without comparison to or difference from an alternative exposure)
- classification of the risk type (continuous or dichotomous, mean, median, proportion, etc.)
- a precision estimate (such as 95% confidence intervals)
- rating of certainty of the risk estimate
- descriptions of the population (eg Stressitis), exposure (eg Superdrug or Placebo), and outcome (eg. Stressiness Score, or risk of headache) that the risk estimate is about
- descriptions of the source of the risk estimate (eg author, citation, type of research, sample size)
EXAMPLE 2 IN THE CONTEXT OF RISK ESTIMATE AS PRIMARY FOCUS
A systematic review and meta-analysis combines 13 studies reporting the risk of Tuberculosis in people with HIV Infection who are exposed to Homelessness. The focus is determining the risk (eg is this a high-risk group for screening?) rather than the measure of the effect of homelessness.
Resource Relationships
The RiskEvidenceSynthesis resource will reference:
- PicoElementDefinition
- citation (an expected resource for future proposal)
Resource Boundaries
To be determined if implementers have questions that need explanations to support distinction and clarification.
EffectEvidenceSynthesis is about the difference (or "effect") between an exposure and alternative exposure state on an outcome in a population. RiskEvidenceSynthesis is about the "risk" of an outcome with an exposure state in a population. RiskEvidenceSytnhesis does not include an alternative exposure state of difference between states.
Timelines
First STU Ballot 2019 May
gForge Users
brynrhodes (github user)
KhalidShahin-EBSCO (github user)
When Resource Proposal Is Complete
When you have completed your proposal, please send an email to FMGcontact@HL7.org
