↓ Skip to main content

Overlap in drug-disease associations between clinical practice guidelines and drug structured product label indications

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Biomedical Semantics, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
Title
Overlap in drug-disease associations between clinical practice guidelines and drug structured product label indications
Published in
Journal of Biomedical Semantics, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13326-016-0081-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tiffany I. Leung, Michel Dumontier

Abstract

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) recommend pharmacologic treatments for clinical conditions, and drug structured product labels (SPLs) summarize approved treatment indications. Both resources are intended to promote evidence-based medical practices and guide clinicians' prescribing decisions. However, it is unclear how well CPG recommendations about pharmacologic therapies match SPL indications for recommended drugs. In this study, we perform text mining of CPG summaries to examine drug-disease associations in CPG recommendations and in SPL treatment indications for 15 common chronic conditions. We constructed an initial text corpus of guideline summaries from the National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC) from a set of manually selected ICD-9 codes for each of the 15 conditions. We obtained 377 relevant guideline summaries and their Major Recommendations section, which excludes guidelines for pediatric patients, pregnant or breastfeeding women, or for medical diagnoses not meeting inclusion criteria. A vocabulary of drug terms was derived from five medical taxonomies. We used named entity recognition, in combination with dictionary-based and ontology-based methods, to identify drug term occurrences in the text corpus and construct drug-disease associations. The ATC (Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification) was utilized to perform drug name and drug class matching to construct the drug-disease associations from CPGs. We then obtained drug-disease associations from SPLs using conditions mentioned in their Indications section in SIDER. The primary outcomes were the frequency of drug-disease associations in CPGs and SPLs, and the frequency of overlap between the two sets of drug-disease associations, with and without using taxonomic information from ATC. Without taxonomic information, we identified 1444 drug-disease associations across CPGs and SPLs for 15 common chronic conditions. Of these, 195 drug-disease associations overlapped between CPGs and SPLs, 917 associations occurred in CPGs only and 332 associations occurred in SPLs only. With taxonomic information, 859 unique drug-disease associations were identified, of which 152 of these drug-disease associations overlapped between CPGs and SPLs, 541 associations occurred in CPGs only, and 166 associations occurred in SPLs only. Our results suggest that CPG-recommended pharmacologic therapies and SPL indications do not overlap frequently when identifying drug-disease associations using named entity recognition, although incorporating taxonomic relationships between drug names and drug classes into the approach improves the overlap. This has important implications in practice because conflicting or inconsistent evidence may complicate clinical decision making and implementation or measurement of best practices.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 5%
Unknown 41 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 23%
Researcher 8 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Professor 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 9 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 5 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 12%
Computer Science 5 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Other 10 23%
Unknown 12 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 June 2016.
All research outputs
#18,462,696
of 22,876,619 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Biomedical Semantics
#299
of 364 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#256,149
of 340,472 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Biomedical Semantics
#18
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,876,619 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 364 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 340,472 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.