Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

PICO annotation of Cochrane Airways reviews

27 views

Published on

PICO annotation of Cochrane Airways reviews. Poster presented at the annual Cochrane Colloquium, Edinburgh, September 2018

Published in: Healthcare
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

PICO annotation of Cochrane Airways reviews

  1. 1. PICO annotation of intervention reviews: a case study of Cochrane Airways Elizabeth Stovold1, Deirdre Beecher2 1Cochrane Airways, Population Health Research Institute, St George’s, University of London, UK 2CET/Informatics & Technology Services, Cochrane, Milan, Italy Background As part of the Cochrane Linked Data projecti, Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs) are annotating their reviews using the PICO (population, intervention, comparison, outcome) annotation tool. The aim of this is to make our research easier to find, share and reuse. Cochrane Airwaysii was involved in the initial annotation pilot project in 2015, and continues to work with the core PICO annotation team. Cochrane Airways has a portfolio of approximately 400 reviews and protocols covering a range of obstructive airways conditions. We are working towards annotating all our reviews at methods level, together with the included studies in reviews published between 2015 and 2018. Objective To describe a process for annotating a portfolio of intervention reviews with PICO, using Cochrane Airways as a case study CRG Funding Acknowledgement: The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) is the largest single funder of Cochrane Airways. Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NIHR, the NHS or the Department of Health. Clinical research hub Conclusions We have described a process for managing the annotation of a portfolio of reviews, which involves prioritisation, identification of vocabulary issues, a small team of annotators. We hope sharing our experience of undertaking this work will be of benefit to other Groups starting to annotate their reviews. Completing this work will make it will easier for patients and consumers to search for and find research of interest, in particular information about review and study outcomes. In the future, this work will also help to link reviews with guidelines • Pilot phase: we chose a single topic (asthma) to annotate at methods level. We then started the next topic (COPD). • Post pilot: annotations are prioritised as follows: 1. All new protocols published 2018 onwards at methods level 2. All new reviews/review updates published 2018 onwards at methods level 3. Included studies in reviews/review updates published 2018 onwards 4. Reviews/review updates published 2015-2017 at methods level 5. All other reviews (publishedbefore 2015) at methods level 6. Included studies in reviews/review updates published 2015-2017 • Results: total completed annotations Methods level Study level 367 complete 394 complete Prioritise reviews for annotation • We have inserted a task into the Airways editorial workflows in Archie for: 1. Annotation at methods level following publication of new protocol 2. Annotation of methods & study level following publicationof new review 3. Annotation of methods & study level following publicationof new review update • Results: completed annotations for 2018 publications Methods level Study level 26 annotations complete 75 annotations complete (from 10 reviews/review updates) Editorial Workflows for new protocols, reviews & updates • We have set up a shared google spreadsheet to record the annotation status of each review/protocol • We use the following categories to indicate the status of a review annotation: All complete; complete at methods level; Blocked; In discussion; Withdrawn; superseded; waiting for publicationof full review; Not for annotation (DTA; overview; prognosis; qualitative) • Results: tracking status of annotations 55 All complete (methods & studies) 298 complete at methods level 3 blocked 8 in discussion 2 Withdrawn 7 superseded 7 waiting for publication of full review 10 not for annotation Tracking progress • We have set up a shared google spreadsheet to record preferred terms for each PICO element: • Vocabulary issues are reported to the Cochrane PICO annotation team. Examples of these are: • Missing terms • Duplicate terms • Orphan terms (not linked to a broader or narrower term) • Results: all vocabulary issues 77 raised 52 resolved 5 no action required 20 ongoing Managing vocabulary • Annotation by information specialist (IS): • No QA required. • Vocabulary queries are discussed with a colleague, or posted on the Slack annotation channel to seek suggestions from other annotators. • Annotations with queries are marked as ‘in discussion’until resolved. • Annotation by other annotator: • QA required by the IS. • If no changes or minor changes needed corrections are made by the IS and the annotation is completed. • If there are major changes, they are marked for reannotation, with notes, and the annotator is notified. • Results: the team 1 information specialist 3 additional annotators: from the Complementary Medicine Field; Cochrane Airways editorial base; and a review author/member of the Cochrane central executive team The team – working methods Process & Results i. Cochrane Linked Data. https://linkeddata.cochrane.org/home ii. Cochrane Airways. https://airways.cochrane.org/

×