2019
DOI: 10.1186/s12911-019-0940-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Developing a framework for evidence-based grading and assessment of predictive tools for clinical decision support

Abstract: BackgroundClinical predictive tools quantify contributions of relevant patient characteristics to derive likelihood of diseases or predict clinical outcomes. When selecting predictive tools for implementation at clinical practice or for recommendation in clinical guidelines, clinicians are challenged with an overwhelming and ever-growing number of tools, most of which have never been implemented or assessed for comparative effectiveness. To overcome this challenge, we have developed a conceptual framework to G… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
41
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 36 publications
(43 citation statements)
references
References 192 publications
(280 reference statements)
2
41
0
Order By: Relevance
“…After a first individual screening independently performed by both section editors based on the title and abstract of papers, 115 (not rejected by both section editors) were discussed by the two editors to achieve a final selection of 15 candidate best papers. After the external review of these 15 articles, the editorial committee finally selected three of them as best papers for 2019 [3][4][5] (Table 1). They are discussed in the next section, and summaries of their contents are available in the Appendix.…”
Section: Review Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…After a first individual screening independently performed by both section editors based on the title and abstract of papers, 115 (not rejected by both section editors) were discussed by the two editors to achieve a final selection of 15 candidate best papers. After the external review of these 15 articles, the editorial committee finally selected three of them as best papers for 2019 [3][4][5] (Table 1). They are discussed in the next section, and summaries of their contents are available in the Appendix.…”
Section: Review Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To overcome this major challenge, the authors have developed a new evidence-based framework for grading and assessment of predictive tools (The GRASP Framework) [19]. This framework aims to provide clinicians with standardised objective information on predictive tools to support their search for and selection of effective tools for their tasks.…”
Section: The Grasp Frameworkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…At the same time, the visual presentation of assigning the nal grade passes through the three dimensions: phases of evaluation, level of evidence, and direction of evidence. The GRASP framework concept is shown in Figure 1, the various grading and assessment levels are shown in Table 1, and the GRASP framework detailed report is presented in Table 4 in the Appendix [19].…”
Section: The Grasp Frameworkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Low Evidence -The Tool Has Been Tested for Internal Validity B3 Figure 1: The GRASP Framework Concept [23] The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of using GRASP on the decisions made by professionals in selecting predictive tools for clinical decision support. The objective is to explore whether the GRASP framework is going to positively support professionals' evidence-based decision-making and improve their accuracy and efficiency in selecting clinical predictive tools.…”
Section: Level Of Evidencementioning
confidence: 99%
“…To overcome this major challenge, the authors have developed and validated a new evidence-based framework for grading and assessment of predictive tools (The GRASP Framework) [23]. The aim of this framework is to provide standardised objective information on predictive tools to support the search for and selection of effective tools.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%