Using artificial intelligence methods for systematic review in health sciences: A systematic review.

The exponential increase in published articles makes a thorough and expedient review of literature increasingly challenging. This review delineated automated tools and platforms that employ artificial intelligence (AI) approaches and evaluated the reported benefits and challenges in using such methods. A search was conducted in 4 databases (Medline, Embase, CDSR, and Epistemonikos) up to April 2021 for systematic reviews and other related reviews implementing AI methods. To be included, the review must use any form of AI method, including machine learning, deep learning, neural network, or any other applications used to enable the full or semi-autonomous performance of one or more stages in the development of evidence synthesis. Twelve reviews were included, using nine different tools to implement 15 different AI methods. Eleven methods were used in the screening stages of the review (73%). The rest were divided: two in data extraction (13%) and two in risk of bias assessment (13%). The ambiguous benefits of the data extractions, combined with the reported advantages from 10 reviews, indicating that AI platforms have taken hold with varying success in evidence synthesis. However, the results are qualified by the reliance on the self-reporting of the review authors. Extensive human validation still appears required at this stage in implementing AI methods, though further evaluation is required to define the overall contribution of such platforms in enhancing efficiency and quality in evidence synthesis.

Effectiveness of App-Delivered, Tailored Self-management Support for Adults With Lower Back Pain-Related Disability: A selfBACK Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Lower back pain (LBP) is a prevalent and challenging condition in primary care. The effectiveness of an individually tailored self-management support tool delivered via a smartphone app has not been rigorously tested. Objective: To investigate the effectiveness of selfBACK, an evidence-based, individually tailored self-management support system delivered through an app as an adjunct to usual care for adults with LBP-related disability. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial with an intention-to-treat data analysis enrolled eligible individuals who sought care for LBP in a primary care or an outpatient spine clinic in Denmark and Norway from March 8 to December 14, 2019. Participants were 18 years or older, had nonspecific LBP, scored 6 points or higher on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and had a smartphone and access to email. Interventions: The selfBACK app provided weekly recommendations for physical activity, strength and flexibility exercises, and daily educational messages. Self-management recommendations were tailored to participant characteristics and symptoms. Usual care included advice or treatment offered to participants by their clinician. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was the mean difference in RMDQ scores between the intervention group and control group at 3 months. Secondary outcomes included average and worst LBP intensity levels in the preceding week as measured on the numerical rating scale, ability to cope as assessed with the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire, fear-avoidance belief as assessed by the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire, cognitive and emotional representations of illness as assessed by the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire, health-related quality of life as assessed by the EuroQol-5 Dimension questionnaire, physical activity level as assessed by the Saltin-Grimby Physical Activity Level Scale, and overall improvement as assessed by the Global Perceived Effect scale. Outcomes were measured at baseline, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 9 months. Results: A total of 461 participants were included in the analysis; the population had a mean [SD] age of 47.5 [14.7] years and included 255 women (55%). Of these participants, 232 were randomized to the intervention group and 229 to the control group. By the 3-month follow-up, 399 participants (87%) had completed the trial. The adjusted mean difference in RMDQ score between the 2 groups at 3 months was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.06-1.51; P = .03), favoring the selfBACK intervention. The percentage of participants who reported a score improvement of at least 4 points on the RMDQ was 52% in the intervention group vs 39% in the control group (adjusted odds ratio, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.15-2.70; P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults who sought care for LBP in a primary care or an outpatient spine clinic, those who used the selfBACK system as an adjunct to usual care had reduced pain-related disability at 3 months. The improvement in pain-related disability was small and of uncertain clinical significance. Process evaluation may provide insights into refining the selfBACK app to increase its effectiveness. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03798288.

Usability and Acceptability of an App (SELFBACK) to Support Self-Management of Low Back Pain: Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Self-management is the key recommendation for managing nonspecific low back pain (LBP). However, there are well-documented barriers to self-management; therefore, methods of facilitating adherence are required. Smartphone apps are increasingly being used to support self-management of long-term conditions such as LBP. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the usability and acceptability of the SELFBACK smartphone app, designed to support and facilitate self-management of non-specific LBP. The app provides weekly self-management plans, comprising physical activity, strength and flexibility exercises, and patient education. The plans are tailored to the patient's characteristics and symptom progress by using case-based reasoning methodology. METHODS: The study was carried out in 2 stages using a mixed-methods approach. All participants undertook surveys, and semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with a subgroup of participants. Stage 1 assessed an app version with only the physical activity component and a web questionnaire that collects information necessary for tailoring the self-management plans. The physical activity component included monitoring of steps recorded by a wristband, goal setting, and a scheme for sending personalized, timely, and motivational notifications to the user's smartphone. Findings from Stage 1 were used to refine the app and inform further development. Stage 2 investigated an app version that incorporated 3 self-management components (physical activity, exercises, and education). A total of 16 participants (age range 23-71 years) with ongoing or chronic nonspecific LBP were included in Stage 1, and 11 participants (age range 32-56 years) were included in Stage 2. RESULTS: In Stage 1, 15 of 16 participants reported that the baseline questionnaire was easy to answer, and 84% (13/16) found the completion time to be acceptable. Overall, participants were positive about the usability of the physical activity component but only 31% (5/16) found the app functions to be well integrated. Of the participants, 90% (14/16) were satisfied with the notifications, and they were perceived as being personalized (12/16, 80%). In Stage 2, all participants reported that the web questionnaire was easy to answer and the completion time acceptable. The physical activity and exercise components were rated useful by 80% (8/10), while 60% (6/10) rated the educational component useful. Overall, participants were satisfied with the usability of the app; however, only 50% (5/10) found the functions to be well integrated, and 20% (2/10) found them to be inconsistent. Overall, 80% (8/10) of participants reported it to be useful for self-management. The interviews largely reinforced the survey findings in both stages. CONCLUSIONS: This study has demonstrated that participants considered the SELFBACK app to be acceptable and usable and that they thought it would be useful for supporting self-management of LBP. However, we identified some limitations and suggestions useful to guide further development of the SELFBACK app and other mobile health interventions.

Integrating case-based reasoning with an electronic patient record system.

UNLABELLED: Electronic patient records (EPRs) contain a wealth of patient-related data and capture clinical problem-solving experiences and decisions. Excelicare is such a system which is also a platform for the national generic clinical system in the UK. OBJECTIVE: This paper presents, ExcelicareCBR, a case-based reasoning (CBR) system which has been developed to complement Excelicare. Objective of this work is to integrate CBR to support clinical decision making by harnessing electronic patient records for clinical experience reuse. METHODS: CBR is a proven problem solving methodology in which past solutions are reused to solve new problems. A key challenge that we address in this paper is how to extract and represent a case from an EPR. Using an example from the lung cancer domain we demonstrate our generic case representation approach where Excelicare fields are mapped to case features. Once the case base is populated with cases containing data from the EPRs database a standard weighted k-nearest neighbour algorithm combined with a genetic algorithm based feature weighting mechanism is used for case retrieval and reuse. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that incorporating case authoring functionality and a generic retrieval mechanism were key to successful integration of ExcelicareCBR. This paper also demonstrates how the application of CBR can enable sharing of lessons learned through the retrieval and reuse of EPRs captured as cases in a case base.

Using computer aided case based reasoning to support clinical reasoning in community occupational therapy.

Community occupational therapists have long been involved in the provision of environmental control systems. Diverse electronic technologies with the potential to improve the health and quality of life of selected clients have developed rapidly in recent years. Occupational therapists employ clinical reasoning in order to determine the most appropriate technology to meet the needs of individual clients. This paper describes a number of the drivers that may increase the adoption of information and communication technologies in the occupational therapy profession. It outlines case based reasoning as understood in the domains of expert systems and knowledge management and presents the preliminary results of an ongoing investigation into the potential of a prototype computer aided case based reasoning tool to support the clinical reasoning of community occupational therapists in the process of assisting clients to choose home electronic assistive or smart house technology.