RE: Health Evidence Knowledge Accelerator (HEvKA) Daily Progress August 30, 2024
Brian Alper
Sharon
Thank you for your feedback. FYI – reply to the HEvKA email distribution list goes to about 200 people. I am replying to the group in case others are interested in this message.
For detailed discussions, there is a Risk of Bias Terminology Working Group that meets on Fridays, and there is a dedicated Scientific Evidence Code System (SEVCO) Expert Working Group email list.
The risk of bias terminology has 2 parts: one part with > 200 terms covers the types of bias, including selection bias, attrition bias, reporting bias, etc. The other part covers the terms for reporting the risk of such bias. These terms can relate to any of the types of bias, so the term “low risk of bias” could be applied to reporting bias, detection bias, etc.
Brian
Brian S. Alper, MD, MSPH, FAAFP, FAMIA
CEO, Computable Publishing LLC
bal...@computablepublishing.com
Making Science Machine-Interpretable
http://computablepublishing.com
Lead, HEALTH EVIDENCE KNOWLEDGE ACCELERATOR
President, Scientific Knowledge Accelerator Foundation
Read about The Mission Change of a Lifetime
"It only takes a pebble to start an avalanche."
From: Sharon Hibay <shi...@advancedhealthoutcomes.com>
Sent: Monday, September 2, 2024 10:59 AM
To: Joanne Dehnbostel <jdehn...@computablepublishing.com>; Health Evidence Knowledge Accelerator (HEvKA) <HE...@computablepublishing.com>
Subject: RE: Health Evidence Knowledge Accelerator (HEvKA) Daily Progress August 30, 2024
Bryan & Joanne, I would recommend a slight modification to the title of each of the bias terms by adding “results” in front of the word “bias” (see the table below), as there are many types of research biases (e.g., selection, sampling, question order, confirmation, recall, non-response). Should you land on other bias level terminology, it would be my recommendation that “results” would accompany “bias”.
With Kindness,
Dr. Sharon M. Hibay
AHO CEO and Principal
Women-Owned Small Business
Bettering Populations with Technology, Data & Measures
This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, any disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this communication or its substance is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please return to the sender and delete from your computer system.
From: Joanne Dehnbostel <jdehn...@computablepublishing.com>
Sent: Monday, September 2, 2024 9:13 AM
To: Health Evidence Knowledge Accelerator (HEvKA) <HE...@computablepublishing.com>
Subject: Health Evidence Knowledge Accelerator (HEvKA) Daily Progress August 30, 2024
Announcement: There will be no HEvKA Meetings September 2, 2024 (Labor Day in the United States)
Special participation opportunity:
We need your help:
We are creating a grant application titled “Setting Evidence-Based Medicine on Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (EBMonFHIR) as the data standard for biomedical research” for PAR-23-236 Early-stage Biomedical Data Repositories and Knowledgebases (see the project page for the grant proposal)
You can help in 3 ways:
- Review the current version of the grant proposal and make suggestions Research Strategy EBMonFHIR Knowledgebase.docx or any of the other pages listed in Associated Links on the project page above.
- Write a letter of support-- Thank you so far to Mike Hamidi (Datainterop LLC and HL7 Vulcan Accelerator), Artur Novak (Evidence Prime), Amy Price (Dartmouth), Gustav Vella (Carelane), Allen Flynn (University of Michigan Medical School), Gabriel Rada (Epistemonikos Foundation), Gert van Valkenhoef (Cochrane) and Kevin Hobbie (ICF International) for completing PDF letters of support.
- Suggest citations to support statements in the text of the grant proposal (citations still needed for reference numbers 23-25, 27-28)
9 people (BA, CA-D, HK, HL, JD, KS, KW, MA, TD) participated in up to 3 active working group meetings.
The Risk of Bias Terminology Working Group found that the term open for voting this week (rating of bias risk) passed with a vote of 7-0. The group then discussed which terms should be used for this rating and viewed the terms that are included in the common rating tools for this purpose including the GRADE approach. The following terms (low risk of bias, moderate risk of bias, high risk of bias, undetermined risk of bias) were chosen, defined, and are open for voting. There are currently 4 risk of bias terms open for voting.
|
Term |
Definition |
Alternative Terms (if any) |
Comment for application (if any) |
|
A qualitative assessment that there is a low likelihood and potential impact of systematic distortion in research results. |
An assessment of low risk of bias means there are no serious concerns for bias. |
||
|
A qualitative assessment that there is some likelihood and potential impact of systematic distortion in research results, but this likelihood and potential impact is neither low nor high. |
|
As opposed to the term undetermined risk of bias, the term 'moderate risk of bias' expresses a positive assertion of concern. |
|
|
A qualitative assessment that there is a high likelihood and potential impact of systematic distortion in research results. |
|
An assessment of high risk of bias means there are serious concerns for bias. |
|
|
A qualitative assessment that there is insufficient information to make a qualitative assessment regarding the likelihood and potential impact of systematic distortion in research results. |
As opposed to the term moderate risk of bias, the term 'undetermined risk of bias' does not express a positive assertion of concern. |
.
The GRADE Ontology Working Group found that the term Incoherence passed with a vote of 10-0. The other terms open for voting (Plausible opposing confounding and Large effect) were refined and reopened for voting as shown below.
|
Term |
Definition |
Alternative Terms (if any) |
Comment for application (if any) |
|
Confounding that may influence the effect in the opposite direction of the observed effect. |
|
The effect of confounding may be suspected or observed.
Opposing confounding is defined as confounding having the effect in the opposite direction of the observed effect. For interpretation in the context of rating the certainty of evidence, opposing confounding may be defined as confounding such that the effect would not lie on one side of a specified threshold or within a specified range.
In the context of rating the certainty of evidence (which is defined as the confidence that the true value of the measure being estimated lies on one side of a specified threshold or within a specified range), the domain of 'Plausible opposing confounding' is only considered when the observed effect lies on one side of a specified threshold or within a specified range. If the observed effect were not in the specified area of interest, then the consideration of plausible opposing confounding would not be relevant.
When rating the certainty of evidence from observational (or non-randomized) studies and when the summary effect of all plausible confounding is considered to be opposing confounding, then one may rate up the certainty of evidence. |
|
|
An effect size that is substantially far from the null. |
|
If the effect is reported with a risk ratio, hazard ratio, or other relative measure for which a value of 1 means a null effect, then a 'large effect' may be considered for any value substantially greater than 1 (e.g. > 2) or any value substantially lesser than 1 (e.g. < 0.5).
When rating the certainty of evidence from observational (or non-randomized) studies and the effect size is sufficiently large that it cannot be plausibly explained by residual confounding and there are no other serious concerns, then one may rate up the certainty of evidence. |
The Project Management Working Group created the agenda for all meetings in September including the HEvKA presentations during the Global Evidence Summit in Prague.
|
Day/Time (Eastern) |
Working Group |
Agenda Items |
|
Monday 8-9 am |
Project Management |
FHIR changes and EBMonFHIR Implementation Guide issues |
|
Monday 9-10 am |
Setting the Scientific Record on FHIR |
Review data standard funding proposal and Authoring Tools progress |
|
Monday 2-3 pm |
Statistic Terminology |
Review SEVCO terms (1 term open for vote, z-score) |
|
Tuesday 9 am-10 am |
Measuring the Rate of Scientific Knowledge Transfer |
Scientific Knowledge Accelerator Foundation Board meeting, review Global Evidence Summit presentations |
|
Tuesday 2-3 pm |
StatisticsOnFHIR (a CDS EBMonFHIR sub-WG) |
Estimand representation in ResearchStudy Resource, develop Evidence Report example |
|
Wednesday 8-9 am |
Making Guidelines Computable |
Create example with Guideline Authoring Tool; poster for Global Evidence Summit |
|
Wednesday 9-10 am |
Communications (Awareness, Scholarly Publications) |
Global Evidence Summit Posters, Special Session, MCBK lightning talks |
|
Thursday 8-9 am |
EBM Implementation Guide (a CDS EBMonFHIR sub-WG) |
QA Report, Profile descriptions |
|
Thursday 9-10 am |
Computable EBM Tools Development |
Review progress with Authoring tools |
|
Friday 9-10 am |
Risk of Bias Terminology |
Review SEVCO risk of bias terms (1 term open for vote, rating of bias risk) |
|
Friday 10-11 am |
GRADE Ontology |
Review GRADE terms (Plausible opposing confounding, Large effect, Incoherence) |
|
Friday 12-1 pm |
Project Management |
September agenda; Review NIH PAR-23-236 R24 Early-stage Biomedical Data Repositories and Knowledgebases |
To join any of these meetings use the following link for a Microsoft Teams Meeting:
For the week of September 2 (No meetings on Labor Day which is Monday, September 2):
|
Day/Time (Eastern) |
Working Group |
Agenda Items |
|
Sep 3 Tuesday 9 am-10 am |
Measuring the Rate of Scientific Knowledge Transfer |
review Global Evidence Summit presentation |
|
Sep 3 Tuesday 2-3 pm |
StatisticsOnFHIR (a CDS EBMonFHIR sub-WG) |
review SEVCO poster for Global Evidence Summit, Estimand representation in ResearchStudy Resource |
|
Sep 4 Wednesday 8-9 am |
Making Guidelines Computable |
Refine example with Guideline Authoring Tool; GINTech agenda for Global Evidence Summit |
|
Sep 4 Wednesday 9-10 am |
Communications (Awareness, Scholarly Publications) |
Global Evidence Summit Posters, Special Session |
|
Sep 5 Thursday 8-9 am |
EBM Implementation Guide (a CDS EBMonFHIR sub-WG) |
QA Report, Profile descriptions |
|
Sep 5 Thursday 9-10 am |
Computable EBM Tools Development |
Review progress with Authoring tools |
|
Sep 6 Friday 9-10 am |
Risk of Bias Terminology |
Review SEVCO risk of bias terms (4 terms open for vote) |
|
Sep 6 Friday 10-11 am |
GRADE Ontology |
Review GRADE terms (Plausible opposing confounding, Large effect) |
|
Sep 6 Friday 12-1 pm |
Project Management |
CANCELLED for travel to Global Evidence Summit |
For the week of September 9 (no HEvKA meetings as many are in Global Evidence Summit in Prague):
|
Day/Time (Central European) |
Presentation/Meeting Type |
Presentation/Meeting Title |
|
Sep 10 Tuesday 11-12:30 am |
Special Session |
Using technology to make the Evidence Ecosystem more efficient and effective: global collaborations for interoperability |
|
Sep 11 Wednesday 7:30-8:30 am |
Working Group |
GINTech |
|
Sep 11 Wednesday 12:30-2 pm |
Poster |
P29 GINTech: Making Guidelines Computable |
|
Sep 12 Thursday 12:30-2 pm |
Poster |
P86 The GRADE Ontology Project |
|
Sep 13 Friday 10:04-10:11 am |
Oral Presentation |
How to Measure the Rate of Knowledge Transfer from Clinical Trials to Clinical Practice Guidance |
|
Sep 13 Friday 12-1:30 pm |
Poster |
P25 Scientific Evidence Code System (SEVCO): a common language for communicating evidence |
|
Sep 14 Saturday 9 am-5 pm |
GRADE Working Group |
agenda includes GRADE Ontology update |
For the week of September 16:
|
Day/Time (Eastern) |
Working Group |
Agenda Items |
|
Sep 16 Monday 11 am-12 pm |
Project Management |
FHIR changes and EBMonFHIR Implementation Guide issues |
|
Sep 16 Monday 9-10 am |
Setting the Scientific Record on FHIR |
Review data standard funding proposal and Authoring Tools progress |
|
Sep 16 Monday 2-3 pm |
Statistic Terminology |
Review SEVCO terms (1 term open for vote, statistical inference paradigm) |
|
Sep 17 Tuesday 9 am-10 am |
Measuring the Rate of Scientific Knowledge Transfer |
project planning |
|
Sep 17 Tuesday 2-3 pm |
StatisticsOnFHIR (a CDS EBMonFHIR sub-WG) |
develop Evidence Report example |
|
Sep 18 Wednesday 8-9 am |
Making Guidelines Computable |
Review feedback from Global Evidence Summit |
|
Sep 18 Wednesday 9-10 am |
Communications (Awareness, Scholarly Publications) |
HL7 WGM EBMonFHIR presentations |
|
Sep 19 Thursday 8-9 am |
EBM Implementation Guide (a CDS EBMonFHIR sub-WG) |
QA Report, Profile descriptions |
|
Sep 19 Thursday 9-10 am |
Computable EBM Tools Development |
Review progress with Authoring tools |
|
Sep 20 Friday 9-10 am |
Risk of Bias Terminology |
Review SEVCO risk of bias terms ( rating of bias risk) |
|
Sep 20 Friday 10-11 am |
GRADE Ontology |
Review GRADE terms |
|
Sep 20 Friday 12-1 pm |
Project Management |
CANCELLED for travel to HL7 Work Group Meeting |
for the week of September 23:
No HEvKA meetings as many will participate in HL7 FHIR Connectathon and Work Group Meeting.
For the week of September 30:
|
Day/Time (Eastern) |
Working Group |
Agenda Items |
|
Sep 30 Monday 8-9 am |
Project Management |
FHIR changes and EBMonFHIR Implementation Guide issues |
|
Sep 30 Monday 9-10 am |
Setting the Scientific Record on FHIR |
Review Authoring Tools progress |
|
Sep 30 Monday 2-3 pm |
Statistic Terminology |
Review SEVCO terms (statistical inference paradigm) |
|
Oct 1 Tuesday 9 am-10 am |
Measuring the Rate of Scientific Knowledge Transfer |
Scientific Knowledge Accelerator Foundation Board meeting |
|
Oct 1 Tuesday 2-3 pm |
StatisticsOnFHIR (a CDS EBMonFHIR sub-WG) |
develop Evidence Report example |
|
Oct 2 Wednesday 8-9 am |
Making Guidelines Computable |
Review progress with Guideline Authoring Tool |
|
Oct 2 Wednesday 9-10 am |
Communications (Awareness, Scholarly Publications) |
publications, presentations, website |
|
Oct 3 Thursday 8-9 am |
EBM Implementation Guide (a CDS EBMonFHIR sub-WG) |
QA Report, Profile descriptions |
|
Oct 3 Thursday 9-10 am |
Computable EBM Tools Development |
Review progress with Authoring tools |
|
Oct 4 Friday 9-10 am |
Risk of Bias Terminology |
Review SEVCO risk of bias terms ( rating of bias risk) |
|
Oct 4 Friday 10-11 am |
GRADE Ontology |
Review GRADE terms |
|
Oct 4 Friday 12-1 pm |
Project Management |
Prepare weekly agenda |
Releases on the FEvIR Platform:
Computable Publishing®: Comparative Evidence Report Viewing Tool version 0.31.0 (August 30, 2024) displays a Composition Resource with a ComparativeEvidenceReport Profile.
Release 0.31.0 (August 30, 2024) no longer displays “No human-readable text added.” when a section Narrative text element is empty.
Computable Publishing®: EvidenceReportPackage Viewing Tool version 0.3.0 (August 30, 2024) displays an EvidenceReportPackage Profile of a Composition Resource.
Release 0.3.0 (August 30, 2024) no longer displays “No human-readable text added.” when a section Narrative text element is empty.
Computable Publishing®: Guideline Viewing Tool version 0.20.0 (August 30, 2024) displays a Guideline Profile of a Composition Resource
Release 0.20.0 (August 30, 2024) no longer displays “No human-readable text added.” when a section Narrative text element is empty.
Computable Publishing®: M11 Report Viewing Tool version 0.18.0 (August 30, 2024) displays an M11Report Profile of a Composition Resource.
Release 0.18.0 (August 30, 2024) no longer displays “No human-readable text added.” when a section Narrative text element is empty.
Computable Publishing®: Recommendation Authoring Tool version 0.25.0 (August 30, 2024) creates a Composition Resource with a Recommendation Profile and the associated Resources for a structured representation of a recommendation.
Release 0.25.0 (August 30, 2024) supports autogeneration of the Narrative summary from the first entry reference in the Population section in the Recommendation Specification section; display of the title, description, combination method, and inclusion and exclusion criteria from the Group Resource defining the Population in the Population section in the Recommendation Specification section in the Recommendation Viewing Tool; and no longer displays “No human-readable text added.” when a section Narrative text element is empty.
Computable Publishing®: Summary Of Findings Viewing Tool 0.28.0 (August 30, 2024) displays a Composition Resource with a SummaryOfFindings Profile.
Release 0.28.0 (August 30, 2024) no longer displays “No human-readable text added.” when a section Narrative text element is empty.
Quote for Thought:
“September’s here,
Time to get into gear,
But before we do,
One last hullabaloo”--author unknown
|
To get involved or stay informed: HEvKA Project Page on FEvIR Platform, HEvKA Project Page on HL7 Confluence, or join any of the groups that are now meeting in the following weekly schedule: Weekly Meeting Schedule and Link:
To join any of these meetings: ________________________________________________________________________________ Microsoft Teams meeting Join on your computer, mobile app or room device Click here to join the meeting *New Link as of January 2024! Meeting ID: 279 232 517 719 Download Teams | Join on the web Or call in (audio only) +1 929-346-7156,,35579956# United States, New York City Phone Conference ID: 355 799 56# Meeting support by ComputablePublishing.com
Joanne Dehnbostel MS, MPH Research and Analysis Manager, Computable Publishing LLC
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
The views and opinions included in this email belong to their author and do not necessarily mirror the views and opinions of the company. Our employees are obliged not to make any defamatory clauses, infringe, or authorize infringement of any legal right. Therefore, the company will not take any liability for such statements included in emails. In case of any damages or other liabilities arising, employees are fully responsible for the content of their emails.
The views and opinions included in this email belong to their author and do not necessarily mirror the views and opinions of the company. Our employees are obliged not to make any defamatory clauses, infringe, or authorize infringement of any legal right. Therefore, the company will not take any liability for such statements included in emails. In case of any damages or other liabilities arising, employees are fully responsible for the content of their emails.