Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Jul-Aug;20(4):749-57.
doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2013-001613. Epub 2013 Apr 5.

Formative evaluation of the accuracy of a clinical decision support system for cervical cancer screening

Affiliations

Formative evaluation of the accuracy of a clinical decision support system for cervical cancer screening

Kavishwar Balwant Wagholikar et al. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013 Jul-Aug.

Abstract

Objectives: We previously developed and reported on a prototype clinical decision support system (CDSS) for cervical cancer screening. However, the system is complex as it is based on multiple guidelines and free-text processing. Therefore, the system is susceptible to failures. This report describes a formative evaluation of the system, which is a necessary step to ensure deployment readiness of the system.

Materials and methods: Care providers who are potential end-users of the CDSS were invited to provide their recommendations for a random set of patients that represented diverse decision scenarios. The recommendations of the care providers and those generated by the CDSS were compared. Mismatched recommendations were reviewed by two independent experts.

Results: A total of 25 users participated in this study and provided recommendations for 175 cases. The CDSS had an accuracy of 87% and 12 types of CDSS errors were identified, which were mainly due to deficiencies in the system's guideline rules. When the deficiencies were rectified, the CDSS generated optimal recommendations for all failure cases, except one with incomplete documentation.

Discussion and conclusions: The crowd-sourcing approach for construction of the reference set, coupled with the expert review of mismatched recommendations, facilitated an effective evaluation and enhancement of the system, by identifying decision scenarios that were missed by the system's developers. The described methodology will be useful for other researchers who seek rapidly to evaluate and enhance the deployment readiness of complex decision support systems.

Keywords: Crowdsourcing; Decision Support Systems, Clinical; Guideline Adherence; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms; Vaginal Smears; Validation Studies as Topic.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Architecture of the system. CDSS, clinical decision support system; EHR, electronic health record.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Guideline flowchart for the proof of concept system. It represents the guideline rulebase implemented in the clinical decision support system. ASC-US, atypical squamous cells of undertermined significance; G/C, gynecology clinic; HPV, human papilloma virus; PAP, Papanicolaou.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Interface of the web-system used by care providers to participate in the study. HPV, human papilloma virus; PAP, Papanicolaou.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Study design. CDSS, clinical decision support system.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Summary of test set construction and CDSS evaluation results, showing number of cases in each step of the study. CDSS, clinical decision support system; EHR, electronic health record.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Modified guideline flowchart. The number in red circles corresponds to the errors described in the text and table 2. The yellow rectangles circumscribe the elements that were appended or modified to make the corrections. ASC-US, atypical squamous cells of undertermined significance; ETZ, endocervical transformation zone; G/C, gynecology clinic; HPV, human papilloma virus; PAP, Papanicolaou.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 2012;62:10–29 - PubMed
    1. Saslow D, Runowicz CD, Solomon D, et al. American Cancer Society guideline for the early detection of cervical neoplasia and cancer. CA Cancer J Clin 2002;52:342–62 - PubMed
    1. ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins—Gynecology ACOG Practice Bulletin no. 109: cervical cytology screening. Obstet Gynecol 2009;114:1409–20 - PubMed
    1. Screening for Cervical Cancer 2003 [cited; http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/uspscerv.htm (accessed 10 Oct 2012).
    1. Wright TC, Jr, Massad LS, Dunton CJ, et al. 2006 Consensus guidelines for the management of women with abnormal cervical cancer screening tests. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007;197:346–55 - PubMed

Publication types