Abstract
In this tutorial, we describe a new framework for representing and synthesizing knowledge from clinical trials involving multiple outcome indicators. The framework offers a formal approach to aggregating clinical evidence. Based on the available evidence, arguments are generated for claiming that one treatment is superior, or equivalent, to another. Evidence comes from randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, network analyses, etc. Preference criteria over arguments are used that are based on the outcome indicators, and the magnitude of those outcome indicators, in the evidence. Meta-arguments attack (i.e. they are counterarguments to) arguments that are based on weaker evidence. An evaluation criterion is used to determine which are the winning arguments, and thereby the recommendations for which treatments are superior. Our approach has an advantage over meta analyses and network analyses in that they aggregate evidence according to a single outcome indicator, whereas our approach combines evidence according to multiple outcome indicators.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Bafeta, A., et al.: Analysis of the systematic reviews process in reports of network meta-analyses: methodological systematic review. Br. Med. J. 347, f3675 (2013)
Baker, S., Kramer, B.: The transitive fallacy for randomized trials: If A beats B and B beats C in separate trials, is A better than C? BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2, 13 (2002)
Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: Elements of Argumentation. MIT Press, Cambridge (2008)
Gorogiannis, N., Hunter, A., Williams, M.: An argument-based approach to reasoning with clinical knowledge. Int. J. Approximate Reasoning 51(1), 1–22 (2009)
Guyatt, G., et al.: GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Br. Med. J. 336, 924–926 (2008)
Guyatt, G., et al.: GRADE: what is quality of evidence and why is it important to clinicians. Br. Med. J. 336, 995–998 (2008)
Hackshaw, A.: A Concise Guide to Clinical Trials. Wiley Blackwell, London (2009)
Hunter, A., Williams, M.: Aggregating evidence about the positive and negative effects of treatments. Artif. Intell. Med. 56, 173–190 (2012). Edited by Baroni, P., et al
Hunter, A., Williams, M.: Using clinical preferences in argumentation about evidence from clinical trials. In: Veinot, T., et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the First ACM International Health Informatics Symposium, pp. 118–129. ACM Press (2010)
Kirkwood, B., Sterne, J.: Essential Medical Statistics. Blackwell, Oxford (2003)
Li, T., et al.: Network meta-analysis-highly attractive but more methodological research is needed. BMC Med. 9(1), 79 (2011)
Liddle, J., Williamson, M., Irwig, L.: Method for Evaluating Research and Guideline Evidence. New South Wales Health Department, Sydney (1996)
Lumley, T.: Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparison. Stat. Med. 21, 2313–2324 (2002)
NICE. Glaucoma: Clinical Guidelines CG85. London, UK: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (2009). www.nice.org.uk. Accessed 1 April 2012
NICE. The Guidelines Manual. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (2009)
N. O’Rourke et al. “Concurrent chemoradiotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer”. In: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Article. No.: CD002140. 6 (2010). doi:10.1002/14651858
Schnemann, H., et al.: GRADE: grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies. Br. Med. J. 336, 1106–1110 (2008)
SIGN. SIGN 50: A Guideline Developers Handbook. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (2011)
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Jiri Chard and Cristina Visintin for valuable feedback on this tutorial.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hunter, A., Williams, M. (2015). Aggregation of Clinical Evidence Using Argumentation: A Tutorial Introduction. In: Hommersom, A., Lucas, P. (eds) Foundations of Biomedical Knowledge Representation. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9521. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28007-3_20
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28007-3_20
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-28006-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-28007-3
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)