Editorial: Data-driven technologies for future healthcare systems

Rahman, Anisur; Moayedikia, Alireza; Wiil, Uffe Kock

doi:10.3389/fmedt.2023.1183687

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Ni et al reported a 450% increase in efficacy of clinical trial pre-screening using electronic health record and not a patient registry, despite the fact that 10% of eligible patients were missed in the process [ 101 ]. More globally, data-driven technologies and strategies are more and more being reported in the literature, whether it is supporting prevention, diagnosis, or decision-making [ 103 – 106 ]. Such strategies’ impact on time optimization and associated cost reduction could be of great aid both to small trial centers working with limited staff and resources, and bigger trial centers dealing with a large volume of patients and trials.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The usage of population and disease registries as pre-screening tools for clinical trials, a systematic review

Foucher,

Azizi,

Öijerstedt

et al. 2024

Syst Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective This systematic review aims to outline the use of population and disease registries for clinical trial pre-screening. Materials and methods The search was conducted in the time period of January 2014 to December 2022 in three databases: MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science Core Collection. References were screened using the Rayyan software, firstly based on titles and abstracts only, and secondly through full text review. Quality of the included studies was assessed using the List of Included Studies and quality Assurance in Review tool, enabling inclusion of publications of only moderate to high quality. Results The search originally identified 1430 citations, but only 24 studies were included, reporting the use of population and/or disease registries for trial pre-screening. Nine disease domains were represented, with 54% of studies using registries based in the USA, and 62.5% of the studies using national registries. Half of the studies reported usage for drug trials, and over 478,679 patients were identified through registries in this review. Main advantages of the pre-screening methodology were reduced financial burden and time reduction. Discussion and conclusion The use of registries for trial pre-screening increases reproducibility of the pre-screening process across trials and sites, allowing for implementation and improvement of a quality assurance process. Pre-screening strategies seem under-reported, and we encourage more trials to use and describe their pre-screening processes, as there is a need for standardized methodological guidelines.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The usage of population and disease registries as pre-screening tools for clinical trials, a systematic review

Foucher,

Azizi,

Öijerstedt

et al. 2024

Syst Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The editorial cites the PATINA decision support tool as an example of an intelligent monitoring system that can prevent the hospitalisation rates of frail older adults. 6 Social media can also be used to harness data on patients to improve their management. This can occur on an individual and population level.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating the characteristics of health-related data collection tools used in randomised controlled trials in low-income and middle-income countries: protocol for a systematic review

Karthikeyan,

Al-Shamaa,

Kelly

et al. 2024

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionHealth-related data collection tools, including digital ones, have become more prevalent across clinical studies in the last number of years. However, using digital data collection tools in low-income and middle-income countries presents unique challenges. In this review, we aim to provide an overview of the data collection tools currently being used in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in low-resource settings and evaluate the tools based on the characteristics outlined in the modified Mobile Survey Tool framework. These include functionality, reliability, usability, efficiency, maintainability, portability, effectiveness, cost–benefit, satisfaction, freedom from risk and context coverage. This evidence may provide a guide to selecting a suitable data collection tool for researchers planning to conduct research in low-income and middle-income countries for future studies.Methods and analysisSearches will be conducted in four electronic databases: PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science and EMBASE. For inclusion, studies must be a RCT, mention a health-related data collection tool and conducted in a low- and middle-income country. Only studies with available full-text and written in English will be included. The search was restricted to studies published between January 2005 and June 2023. This systematic review will use the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) tool. Two review authors will screen the titles and abstracts of search results independently for inclusion. In the initial screening process, the full-text articles will be retrieved if the abstract contains limited information about the study. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion. If the disagreement cannot be resolved, a third author (JO’D) will adjudicate. The study selection process will be outlined in a PRISMA flow-diagram. Data will be analysed using a narrative synthesis approach. The included studies and their outcomes will be presented in a table.Ethics and disseminationFormal ethical approval is not required as primary data will not be collected in this study. The findings from this systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42023405738.

show abstract