Evaluation of Medical Subject Headings assignment in simulated patient articles.

IF 1.5 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Fernanda S Tonin, Luciana G Negrão, Isabela P Meza, Fernando Fernandez-Llimos
{"title":"Evaluation of Medical Subject Headings assignment in simulated patient articles.","authors":"Fernanda S Tonin, Luciana G Negrão, Isabela P Meza, Fernando Fernandez-Llimos","doi":"10.1093/ijpp/riae042","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate human-based Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) allocation in articles about 'patient simulation'-a technique that mimics real-life patient scenarios with controlled patient responses.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A validation set of articles indexed before the Medical Text Indexer-Auto implementation (in 2019) was created with 150 combinations potentially referring to 'patient simulation'. Articles were classified into four categories of simulation studies. Allocation of seven MeSH terms (Simulation Training, Patient Simulation, High Fidelity Simulation Training, Computer Simulation, Patient-Specific Modelling, Virtual Reality, and Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy) was investigated. Accuracy metrics (sensitivity, precision, or positive predictive value) were calculated for each category of studies.</p><p><strong>Key findings: </strong>A set of 7213 articles was obtained from 53 different word combinations, with 2634 excluded as irrelevant. 'Simulated patient' and 'standardized/standardized patient' were the most used terms. The 4579 included articles, published in 1044 different journals, were classified into: 'Machine/Automation' (8.6%), 'Education' (75.9%) and 'Practice audit' (11.4%); 4.1% were 'Unclear'. Articles were indexed with a median of 10 MeSH (IQR 8-13); however, 45.5% were not indexed with any of the seven MeSH terms. Patient Simulation was the most prevalent MeSH (24.0%). Automation articles were more associated with Computer Simulation MeSH (sensitivity = 54.5%; precision = 25.1%), while Education articles were associated with Patient Simulation MeSH (sensitivity = 40.2%; precision = 80.9%). Practice audit articles were also polarized to Patient Simulation MeSH (sensitivity = 34.6%; precision = 10.5%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Inconsistent use of free-text words related to patient simulation was observed, as well as inaccuracies in human-based MeSH assignments. These limitations can compromise relevant literature retrieval to support evidence synthesis exercises.</p>","PeriodicalId":14284,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Pharmacy Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Pharmacy Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpp/riae042","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate human-based Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) allocation in articles about 'patient simulation'-a technique that mimics real-life patient scenarios with controlled patient responses.

Methods: A validation set of articles indexed before the Medical Text Indexer-Auto implementation (in 2019) was created with 150 combinations potentially referring to 'patient simulation'. Articles were classified into four categories of simulation studies. Allocation of seven MeSH terms (Simulation Training, Patient Simulation, High Fidelity Simulation Training, Computer Simulation, Patient-Specific Modelling, Virtual Reality, and Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy) was investigated. Accuracy metrics (sensitivity, precision, or positive predictive value) were calculated for each category of studies.

Key findings: A set of 7213 articles was obtained from 53 different word combinations, with 2634 excluded as irrelevant. 'Simulated patient' and 'standardized/standardized patient' were the most used terms. The 4579 included articles, published in 1044 different journals, were classified into: 'Machine/Automation' (8.6%), 'Education' (75.9%) and 'Practice audit' (11.4%); 4.1% were 'Unclear'. Articles were indexed with a median of 10 MeSH (IQR 8-13); however, 45.5% were not indexed with any of the seven MeSH terms. Patient Simulation was the most prevalent MeSH (24.0%). Automation articles were more associated with Computer Simulation MeSH (sensitivity = 54.5%; precision = 25.1%), while Education articles were associated with Patient Simulation MeSH (sensitivity = 40.2%; precision = 80.9%). Practice audit articles were also polarized to Patient Simulation MeSH (sensitivity = 34.6%; precision = 10.5%).

Conclusions: Inconsistent use of free-text words related to patient simulation was observed, as well as inaccuracies in human-based MeSH assignments. These limitations can compromise relevant literature retrieval to support evidence synthesis exercises.

评估模拟病人文章中的医学主题词分配。
目的评估基于人类的医学主题词表(MeSH)在有关 "患者模拟 "的文章中的分配情况:方法:在医学文本索引器-自动实施(2019 年)之前,我们创建了一个文章验证集,其中有 150 个可能涉及 "患者模拟 "的组合。文章被分为四类模拟研究。调查了七个 MeSH 术语(模拟训练、患者模拟、高保真模拟训练、计算机模拟、患者特定模型、虚拟现实和虚拟现实暴露疗法)的分配情况。计算了每类研究的准确度指标(灵敏度、精确度或阳性预测值):从 53 种不同的词语组合中获得了 7213 篇文章,其中 2634 篇因不相关而被排除。模拟患者 "和 "标准化/规范化患者 "是使用最多的词汇。收录的 4579 篇文章发表在 1044 种不同的期刊上,这些文章被分为以下几类机器/自动化"(8.6%)、"教育"(75.9%)和 "实践审核"(11.4%);4.1%为 "不明确"。文章被收录的 MeSH 中位数为 10(IQR 为 8-13);然而,45.5% 的文章没有被收录到七个 MeSH 术语中的任何一个。患者模拟是最常见的 MeSH 术语(24.0%)。自动化文章与计算机模拟 MeSH 的关联度更高(灵敏度 = 54.5%;精确度 = 25.1%),而教育文章与患者模拟 MeSH 的关联度更高(灵敏度 = 40.2%;精确度 = 80.9%)。实践审计文章也与患者模拟 MeSH 有关(灵敏度 = 34.6%;精确度 = 10.5%):结论:观察到与患者模拟相关的自由文本词的使用不一致,以及基于人工的 MeSH 分配不准确。这些局限性可能会影响相关文献的检索,从而无法支持证据合成工作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
5.60%
发文量
146
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Pharmacy Practice (IJPP) is a Medline-indexed, peer reviewed, international journal. It is one of the leading journals publishing health services research in the context of pharmacy, pharmaceutical care, medicines and medicines management. Regular sections in the journal include, editorials, literature reviews, original research, personal opinion and short communications. Topics covered include: medicines utilisation, medicine management, medicines distribution, supply and administration, pharmaceutical services, professional and patient/lay perspectives, public health (including, e.g. health promotion, needs assessment, health protection) evidence based practice, pharmacy education. Methods include both evaluative and exploratory work including, randomised controlled trials, surveys, epidemiological approaches, case studies, observational studies, and qualitative methods such as interviews and focus groups. Application of methods drawn from other disciplines e.g. psychology, health economics, morbidity are especially welcome as are developments of new methodologies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信