Search

Introduction: Computable biomedical knowledge artifacts (CBKs) are digital objects conveying biomedical knowledge in machine‐interpretable structures. As more CBKs are produced and their complexity increases, the value obtained from sharing CBKs grows. Mobilizing CBKs and sharing them widely can only be achieved if the CBKs are findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable, and trustable (FAIR+T). To help mobilize CBKs, we describe our efforts to outline metadata categories to make CBKs FAIR+T. Methods: We examined the literature regarding metadata with the potential to make digital artifacts FAIR+T. We also examined metadata available online today for actual CBKs of 12 different types. With iterative refinement, we came to a consensus on key categories of metadata that, when taken together, can make CBKs FAIR+T. We use subject‐predicate‐object triples to more clearly differentiate metadata categories. Results: We defined 13 categories of CBK metadata most relevant to making CBKs FAIR+T. Eleven of these categories (type, domain, purpose, identification, location, CBK‐to‐CBK relationships, technical, authorization and rights management, provenance, evidential basis, and evidence from use metadata) are evident today where CBKs are stored online. Two additional categories (preservation and integrity metadata) were not evident in our examples. We provide a research agenda to guide further study and development of these and other metadata categories. Conclusion: A wide variety of metadata elements in various categories is needed to make CBKs FAIR+T. More work is needed to develop a common framework for CBK metadata that can make CBKs FAIR+T for all stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To offer practical, evidence-informed knowledge on clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) and their utility in improving care and reducing costs in otolaryngology–head and neck surgery. This primer on CDSSs introduces clinicians to both the capabilities and the limitations of this technology, reviews the literature on current state, and seeks to spur further progress in this area. Data Sources: PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science. Review Methods: Scoping review of CDSS literature applicable to otolaryngology clinical practice. Investigators identified articles that incorporated knowledge-based computerized CDSSs to aid clinicians in decision making and workflow. Data extraction included level of evidence, Osheroff classification of CDSS intervention type, otolaryngology subspecialty or domain, and impact on provider performance or patient outcomes. Conclusions: Of 3191 studies retrieved, 11 articles met formal inclusion criteria. CDSS interventions included guideline or protocols support (n = 8), forms and templates (n = 5), data presentation aids (n = 2), and reactive alerts, reference information, or order sets (all n = 1); 4 studies had multiple interventions. CDSS studies demonstrated effectiveness across diverse domains, including antibiotic stewardship, cancer survivorship, guideline adherence, data capture, cost reduction, and workflow. Implementing CDSSs often involved collaboration with health information technologists. Implications for Practice: While the published literature on CDSSs in otolaryngology is finite, CDSS interventions are proliferating in clinical practice, with roles in preventing medical errors, streamlining workflows, and improving adherence to best practices for head and neck disorders. Clinicians may collaborate with information technologists and health systems scientists to develop, implement, and investigate the impact of CDSSs in otolaryngology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There has been a dramatic increase in the number and percentage of publications in biomedical and clinical journals in which two or more coauthors claim first authorship, with a change in some journals from no joint first authorship in 1990 to co-first authorship of >30% of all research publications in 2012. As biomedical and clinical research become increasingly complex and team-driven, and given the importance attributed to first authorship by grant reviewers and promotion and tenure committees, the time is ripe for journals, bibliographic databases, and authors to highlight equal first author contributions of published original research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]