Citations

Abstract Background As a major public health crisis, the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic demonstrates the urgent need for safe, effective, and evidence-based implementations of digital health. The urgency stems from the frequent tendency to focus attention on seemingly high promising digital health interventions despite being poorly validated in times of crisis. Aim In this paper, we describe a joint call for action to use and leverage evidence-based health informatics as the foundation for the COVID-19 response and public health interventions. Tangible examples are provided for how the working groups and special interest groups of the International Medical Informatics Association (IMIA) are helping to build an evidence-based response to this crisis. Methods Leaders of working and special interest groups of the IMIA, a total of 26 groups, were contacted via e-mail to provide a summary of the scientific-based efforts taken to combat COVID-19 pandemic and participate in the discussion toward the creation of this manuscript. A total of 13 groups participated in this manuscript. Results Various efforts were exerted by members of IMIA including (1) developing evidence-based guidelines for the design and deployment of digital health solutions during COVID-19; (2) surveying clinical informaticians internationally about key digital solutions deployed to combat COVID-19 and the challenges faced when implementing and using them; and (3) offering necessary resources for clinicians about the use of digital tools in clinical practice, education, and research during COVID-19. Discussion Rigor and evidence need to be taken into consideration when designing, implementing, and using digital tools to combat COVID-19 to avoid delays and unforeseen negative consequences. It is paramount to employ a multidisciplinary approach for the development and implementation of digital health tools that have been rapidly deployed in response to the pandemic bearing in mind human factors, ethics, data privacy, and the diversity of context at the local, national, and international levels. The training and capacity building of front-line workers is crucial and must be linked to a clear strategy for evaluation of ongoing experiences.

AbstractObjectiveThe study sought to describe the literature related to the development of methods for auditing the Unified Medical Language System (UMLS), with particular attention to identifying errors and inconsistencies of attributes of the concepts in the UMLS Metathesaurus.Materials and MethodsWe applied the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) approach by searching the MEDLINE database and Google Scholar for studies referencing the UMLS and any of several terms related to auditing, error detection, and quality assurance. A qualitative analysis and summarization of articles that met inclusion criteria were performed.ResultsEighty-three studies were reviewed in detail. We first categorized techniques based on various aspects including concepts, concept names, and synonymy (n = 37), semantic type assignments (n = 36), hierarchical relationships (n = 24), lateral relationships (n = 12), ontology enrichment (n = 8), and ontology alignment (n = 18). We also categorized the methods according to their level of automation (ie, automated systematic, automated heuristic, or manual) and the type of knowledge used (ie, intrinsic or extrinsic knowledge).ConclusionsThis study is a comprehensive review of the published methods for auditing the various conceptual aspects of the UMLS. Categorizing the auditing techniques according to the various aspects will enable the curators of the UMLS as well as researchers comprehensive easy access to this wealth of knowledge (eg, for auditing lateral relationships in the UMLS). We also reviewed ontology enrichment and alignment techniques due to their critical use of and impact on the UMLS.