Type 2 Diabetes MellitusNCT02928666
Integration of Guidelines for Comorbidities
A study testing DSS for mitigating interactions between recommendations in people with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Lung Diseases, Obstructive, run by Rambam Health Care Campus.
Trial summary
Introduction: in the course of the research, the investigators will develop a decision-support system (comorbidity-DSS) consisting (1) a knowledge base (KB) consisting of (a) computer-interpretable clinical guidelines for type 2 diabetes and 2 other diseases from: obstructive pulmonary disease, osteoporosis… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 85 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Lung Diseases, Obstructive, Osteoporosis
- What is being tested?
- DSS for mitigating interactions between recommendations
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 30 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- Oct 2018to Sep 2019
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 85 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Medical students from Technion medical school or clinical experts from RAMBAM
Who cannot join
- None
About this study
Official title: Goal-oriented Ontology-supported Methodology for Integrating Computer-interpretable Clinical Guidelines and Medical Knowledge to Support Comorbidity Management
Introduction: in the course of the research, the investigators will develop a decision-support system (comorbidity-DSS) consisting (1) a knowledge base (KB) consisting of (a) computer-interpretable clinical guidelines for type 2 diabetes and 2 other diseases from: obstructive pulmonary disease, osteoporosis, hypertension, and osteoarthritis; and (b) an ontology of relevant general medical knowledge that could complement (a) in order to propose non conflicting treatment options not mentioned in the clinical practice guidelines; and (2) an algorithm that matches the KB with a patient's data set to identify the guidelines-based recommendations applicable for the patient and their interactions and which proposes ways to mitigate conflicting interactions (e.g., suggesting to select intervention A.2 (instead of A.1) from guideline A and intervention B.3 (instead of B.1) from guideline B together with an action B' mentioned in the general medical knowledge, because these interventions are not conflicting yet A.3 fulfills the same goals as intervention A.1 and intervention B.3 + B' together fulfill the same goal as B.1).
Research purpose: Assessing the correctness and completeness of detection of recommendation-interaction and generation of conflict-free recommendations by a comorbidity-DSS
Research question: How will the usage of the comorbidity-DSS affect the completeness and correctness of clinicians regarding (a) detection of interactions between recommendations originating from different clinical guidelines applicable for patients with comorbidities and (b) identification of interventions that fulfill the guidelines' goals and are not conflicting.
Read the detailed description
The protocol is as follows.
- In consultation with 3 expert clinicians, the investigators will create a database of patient scenarios. The investigators will obtain deidentified extracts from medical records of 6-12 typical patients who have type 2 diabetes and at least one of the following comorbidities: obstructive pulmonary disease, osteoporosis, hypertension, and osteoarthritis will be obtained. The data obtained will include relevant observations, medications, and procedures regarding these patients. Relevancy will be determined from the clinical practice guidelines for the above-mentioned diseases, which specify which data should be collected from such patients. The data will not include information that could identify the patient, such as date of birth, name, identification number, street address, telephone number. The patient cases will be assembled into a database of scenarios, decomposed into several steps, each step taking place at a different point along the clinical guideline's timeline and being composed of several decision-points regarding goals of the clinical guidelines. In total, there would be 60 decision points across all patient scenarios.
- Validation of the KB and creation of a gold standard. The three experienced clinicians will validate the KB and will also create a gold standard set of interactions between recommendations for the decision points of the patient scenarios as well as a set of recommendations that fulfill the clinical guidelines' goals for these decision points that are conflict-free.
- Recruiting study participants. The investigators will send invitations to 50 clinicians/medical students in order to recruit at least 30 participants for our experiment. The participants will be asked to solve (detect interactions and propose non conflicting interventions) six scenarios. Anticipated time for solving the cases: 3 hours + 1 hour of introduction and signing consent documents.
- Crossover study design will be used to compare the effect of using the comorbidity-DSS for detection of recommendations interactions and on generation of correct non-conflicting recommendations. Each participant will be given 6 scenarios: 3 will be solved with the aid of the system and 3 without it. Each scenario will be presented to the clinicians as a series of single steps. In DSS-mode the clinicians will be presented with the output of the comorbidity-DSS for each step, including the list of interactions between recommendations originating in the different clinical guidelines and the set of non-conflicting recommendations that fulfill the goals of the relevant decision point/goal. They will need to say for each interaction and for each non-conflicting recommendation whether they accept or reject it, possibly adding some free text; in the non-DSS mode, the clinicians will need to provide their set of detected interactions and proposed non-conflicting recommendations after each step, in free text.
- While the gold standard interactions and recommendations would have been created ahead of time by the three clinicians from RAMBAM in step 1, it is possible that the comorbidity-DSS or that the study participants will identify additional interactions and non-conflicting recommendations. The three clinicians will review these as well and could potentially revise the gold standard to include a richer set of interactions and of non-conflicting recommendations for each set. Based on the revised gold standard, completeness and correctness of the interactions detected and the non-conflicting recommendations generated by the participant will be calculated, while using the comorbidity-DSS vs. without it for the different steps (decisions/goals). The overall completeness and correctness are percentages, and thus range from 0 to 1, relative to the extended gold standard.
- Statistical analysis will be done as follows. Assuming that total completeness and correctness are two dependent variables, as they are bounded variables between zero and 1. Thus, a beta regression model with a logit link function will be used for the mean response model; a log link function will be fitted for the precision model. This model is based on the assumption that the dependent variable is beta-distributed and that its mean is related to a set of regressors through a linear predictor with unknown coefficients and a link function. The full model shall include three factors: (1) DSS mode (DSS and Non-DSS), (2) Level of training (e.g., 1st year resident, experienced resident, specialist), and (3) Scenario (as different scenarios will be used). The pseudo R2 value (squared correlation of linear predictor and link-transformed response) will be used to measure the overall goodness of fit of the model. A backward elimination algorithm will be used to assess what are the important factors. Unlike the total completeness measure, which was computed for the overall set of decision-points per scenario per clinician, the investigators will also analyze the completeness measure for each decision-point (e.g., "order lab test"), increasing resolution and looking at the clinician's guideline-based action per decision; therefore, the measured variable is binary, and a logistic regression with a logit link function will be used. As in the previous case, the full model will include three factors; a backward elimination algorithm will be used to reach the final model.
- Conditions
- Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Lung Diseases, Obstructive, Osteoporosis, Hypertension, Osteoarthritis
- Being tested
- DSS for mitigating interactions between recommendations
- Keywords
- decision-support, ontology, computer-interpretable guidelines, comorbidities
- Medical subject headings
- Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Lung Diseases, Obstructive, Osteoporosis, Hypertension, Osteoarthritis
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
DSS for mitigating interactions between recommendationsOther
DSS that detects and mitigates interactions between recommendations, proposing a set of non-conflicting guideline recommendations
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| DSS for recommendation interactions | Experimental | participants may use the DSS for mitigating interactions between recommendations to detect interactions between guideline recommendations and find sets of non-conflicting recommendations. In addition, they may look at the relevant clinical guidelines and additional medical knowledge sources regarding drug-drug relationships, indications and contraindications. Receives: Other: DSS for mitigating interactions between recommendations |
| No DSS | No intervention | participants use only the relevant clinical guidelines and additional medical knowledge sources regarding drug-drug relationships, indications and contraindications to detect interactions between guideline recommendations and find sets of non-conflicting recommendations |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Number of conflicting recommendations detected out of total number of conflicts
Total number of conflicts will be defined by a gold standard prepared by medical experts from RambamMC
Measured: 3 hours
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted10 Oct 2016 (estimated)
- Study startOct 2018 (estimated)
- Primary completionJul 2019 (estimated)
- Study completionSep 2019 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Type 2 Diabetes MellitusStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Basic science
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Investigator
- Enrolment
- 30 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Rambam Health Care Campus
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University of Haifa
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Irit HOCHBERG MD, Rambam Health Care Campus
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02928666
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- RambamMC-16-IH-0400-16-RMB
- Status last verified
- Oct 2016
- First submitted
- 4 Oct 2016
- Last updated
- 28 Apr 2017
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Undecided
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 28 Apr 2017. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Goal-oriented Ontology-supported Methodology for Integrating Computer-interpretable Clinical Guidelines and Medical Knowledge to Support Comorbidity Management
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02928666
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- RambamMC-16-IH-0400-16-RMB
- Conditions
- Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Lung Diseases, Obstructive, Osteoporosis, Hypertension, Osteoarthritis
- Keywords
- decision-support, ontology, computer-interpretable guidelines, comorbidities
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Unknown status
- Enrolment
- 30 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Rambam Health Care CampusUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University of Haifa
- Study start
- Oct 2018 (estimated)
- Primary completion
- Jul 2019 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Sep 2019 (estimated)
- First posted
- 10 Oct 2016 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Introduction: in the course of the research, the investigators will develop a decision-support system (comorbidity-DSS) consisting (1) a knowledge base (KB) consisting of (a) computer-interpretable clinical guidelines for type 2 diabetes and 2 other diseases from: obstructive pulmonary disease, osteoporosis, hypertension, and osteoarthritis; and (b) an ontology of relevant general medical knowledge that could complement (a) in order to propose non conflicting treatment options not mentioned in the clinical practice guidelines; and (2) an algorithm that matches the KB with a patient's data set to identify the guidelines-based recommendations applicable for the patient and their interactions and which proposes ways to mitigate conflicting interactions (e.g., suggesting to select intervention A.2 (instead of A.1) from guideline A and intervention B.3 (instead of B.1) from guideline B together with an action B' mentioned in the general medical knowledge, because these interventions are not conflicting yet A.3 fulfills the same goals as intervention A.1 and intervention B.3 + B' together fulfill the same goal as B.1).
Research purpose: Assessing the correctness and completeness of detection of recommendation-interaction and generation of conflict-free recommendations by a comorbidity-DSS
Research question: How will the usage of the comorbidity-DSS affect the completeness and correctness of clinicians regarding (a) detection of interactions between recommendations originating from different clinical guidelines applicable for patients with comorbidities and (b) identification of interventions that fulfill the guidelines' goals and are not conflicting.
Detailed description
The protocol is as follows.
- In consultation with 3 expert clinicians, the investigators will create a database of patient scenarios. The investigators will obtain deidentified extracts from medical records of 6-12 typical patients who have type 2 diabetes and at least one of the following comorbidities: obstructive pulmonary disease, osteoporosis, hypertension, and osteoarthritis will be obtained. The data obtained will include relevant observations, medications, and procedures regarding these patients. Relevancy will be determined from the clinical practice guidelines for the above-mentioned diseases, which specify which data should be collected from such patients. The data will not include information that could identify the patient, such as date of birth, name, identification number, street address, telephone number. The patient cases will be assembled into a database of scenarios, decomposed into several steps, each step taking place at a different point along the clinical guideline's timeline and being composed of several decision-points regarding goals of the clinical guidelines. In total, there would be 60 decision points across all patient scenarios.
- Validation of the KB and creation of a gold standard. The three experienced clinicians will validate the KB and will also create a gold standard set of interactions between recommendations for the decision points of the patient scenarios as well as a set of recommendations that fulfill the clinical guidelines' goals for these decision points that are conflict-free.
- Recruiting study participants. The investigators will send invitations to 50 clinicians/medical students in order to recruit at least 30 participants for our experiment. The participants will be asked to solve (detect interactions and propose non conflicting interventions) six scenarios. Anticipated time for solving the cases: 3 hours + 1 hour of introduction and signing consent documents.
- Crossover study design will be used to compare the effect of using the comorbidity-DSS for detection of recommendations interactions and on generation of correct non-conflicting recommendations. Each participant will be given 6 scenarios: 3 will be solved with the aid of the system and 3 without it. Each scenario will be presented to the clinicians as a series of single steps. In DSS-mode the clinicians will be presented with the output of the comorbidity-DSS for each step, including the list of interactions between recommendations originating in the different clinical guidelines and the set of non-conflicting recommendations that fulfill the goals of the relevant decision point/goal. They will need to say for each interaction and for each non-conflicting recommendation whether they accept or reject it, possibly adding some free text; in the non-DSS mode, the clinicians will need to provide their set of detected interactions and proposed non-conflicting recommendations after each step, in free text.
- While the gold standard interactions and recommendations would have been created ahead of time by the three clinicians from RAMBAM in step 1, it is possible that the comorbidity-DSS or that the study participants will identify additional interactions and non-conflicting recommendations. The three clinicians will review these as well and could potentially revise the gold standard to include a richer set of interactions and of non-conflicting recommendations for each set. Based on the revised gold standard, completeness and correctness of the interactions detected and the non-conflicting recommendations generated by the participant will be calculated, while using the comorbidity-DSS vs. without it for the different steps (decisions/goals). The overall completeness and correctness are percentages, and thus range from 0 to 1, relative to the extended gold standard.
- Statistical analysis will be done as follows. Assuming that total completeness and correctness are two dependent variables, as they are bounded variables between zero and 1. Thus, a beta regression model with a logit link function will be used for the mean response model; a log link function will be fitted for the precision model. This model is based on the assumption that the dependent variable is beta-distributed and that its mean is related to a set of regressors through a linear predictor with unknown coefficients and a link function. The full model shall include three factors: (1) DSS mode (DSS and Non-DSS), (2) Level of training (e.g., 1st year resident, experienced resident, specialist), and (3) Scenario (as different scenarios will be used). The pseudo R2 value (squared correlation of linear predictor and link-transformed response) will be used to measure the overall goodness of fit of the model. A backward elimination algorithm will be used to assess what are the important factors. Unlike the total completeness measure, which was computed for the overall set of decision-points per scenario per clinician, the investigators will also analyze the completeness measure for each decision-point (e.g., "order lab test"), increasing resolution and looking at the clinician's guideline-based action per decision; therefore, the measured variable is binary, and a logistic regression with a logit link function will be used. As in the previous case, the full model will include three factors; a backward elimination algorithm will be used to reach the final model.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Basic science
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- Single blind (investigator)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| DSS for recommendation interactions | Experimental | Other: DSS for mitigating interactions between recommendationsparticipants may use the DSS for mitigating interactions between recommendations to detect interactions between guideline recommendations and find sets of non-conflicting recommendations. In addition, they may look at the relevant clinical guidelines and additional medical knowledge sources regarding drug-drug relationships, indications and contraindications. |
| No DSS | No intervention | –participants use only the relevant clinical guidelines and additional medical knowledge sources regarding drug-drug relationships, indications and contraindications to detect interactions between guideline recommendations and find sets of non-conflicting recommendations |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 85 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Medical students from Technion medical school or clinical experts from RAMBAM
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- None
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| DSS for mitigating interactions between recommendationsDSS that detects and mitigates interactions between recommendations, proposing a set of non-conflicting guideline recommendations | Other | DSS for recommendation interactions |
Primary outcome
Number of conflicting recommendations detected out of total number of conflicts
Time frame: 3 hours
Total number of conflicts will be defined by a gold standard prepared by medical experts from RambamMC
Results and safety
Results are not available in the source record.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 28 Apr 2017.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Undecided
Related trials for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
Active, not recruiting
Effect of the Thrive AI Health App on Lifestyle Behaviors and Quality of Life
Diabetes Type 2, Overweight or Obesity
Recruiting
Insulin-Mediated Glucose Uptake and Organ Perfusion Assessed by Total-Body PET During GIP and GLP-1 Infusion
Type 2 Diabetes, Healhty
RecruitingObservational study
Dietitian-Nutritionist vs. Day Hospital in the Metabolic Control of Patients With Type 2 Diabetes
Diabetes (DM)
RecruitingPhase 2
Study to Assess the Effects of ALN-ANG3 in Adult Participants With Diabetic Kidney Disease
Diabetic Kidney Disease (DKD)
RecruitingObservational study
AI-Driven Metabolic Cohort in Overweight/Obese Chinese Adults
Overweight and Obesity, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing DSS for mitigating interactions between recommendations in people with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Lung Diseases, Obstructive, run by Rambam Health Care Campus.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: status not confirmed, as of the sponsor's last update on 28 Apr 2017. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Results are not available in the source record.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Number of conflicting recommendations detected out of total number of conflicts (time frame: 3 hours). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 28 Apr 2017.