| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Research Paper |
Affiliations of the authors: Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts (LO-M, EP-G, RAG); Stanford University, Stanford, California (JHG, SWT, DEO, EHS); Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts (SM, GOB); Columbia University, New York, New York (NLJ). Mr. Pattison-Gordon now works at BBN Systems and Technologies, GTE Internet-working, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Correspondence and reprints: Dr. Lucila Ohno-Machado, Decision Systems Group, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA 02115. e-mail: <machado{at}dsg.harvard.edu>.
Abstract Objective: To allow exchange of clinical practice guidelines among institutions and computer-based applications.
Design: The GuideLine Interchange Format (GLIF) specification consists of the GLIF model and the GLIF syntax. The GLIF model is an object-oriented representation that consists of a set of classes for guideline entities, attributes for those classes, and data types for the attribute values. The GLIF syntax specifies the format of the test file that contains the encoding.
Methods: Researchers from the InterMed Collaboratory at Columbia University, Harvard University (Brigham and Women's Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital), and Stanford University analyzed four existing guideline systems to derive a set of requirements for guideline representation. The GLIF specification is a consensus representation developed through a brainstorming process. Four clinical guidelines were encoded in GLIF to assess its expressivity and to study the variability that occurs when two people from different sites encode the same guideline.
Results: The encoders reported that GLIF was adequately expressive. A comparison of the encodings revealed substantial variability.
Conclusion: GLIF was sufficient to model the guidelines for the four conditions that were examined. GLIF needs improvement in standard representation of medical concepts, criterion logic, temporal information, and uncertainty.
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  A. Wright, H. Goldberg, T. Hongsermeier, and B. Middleton A Description and Functional Taxonomy of Rule-based Decision Support Content at a Large Integrated Delivery Network J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc., July 1, 2007; 14(4): 489 - 496. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. N. Shiffman, G. Michel, A. Essaihi, and E. Thornquist Bridging the Guideline Implementation Gap: A Systematic, Document-Centered Approach to Guideline Implementation J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc., September 1, 2004; 11(5): 418 - 426. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. A. Mendonca Clinical Decision Support Systems: Perspectives in Dentistry J Dent Educ., June 1, 2004; 68(6): 589 - 597. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Peleg, A. A. Boxwala, S. Tu, Q. Zeng, O. Ogunyemi, D. Wang, V. L. Patel, R. A. Greenes, and E. H. Shortliffe The InterMed Approach to Sharable Computer-interpretable Guidelines: A Review J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc., January 1, 2004; 11(1): 1 - 10. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R.A. Greenes Decision Support at the Point of Care: Challenges in Knowledge Representation, Management, and Patient-specific Access Adv. Dent. Res., December 1, 2003; 17(1): 69 - 73. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. R. Sutton and J. Fox The Syntax and Semantics of the PROforma Guideline Modeling Language J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc., September 1, 2003; 10(5): 433 - 443. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. M. Maviglia, R. D. Zielstorff, M. Paterno, J. M. Teich, D. W. Bates, and G. J. Kuperman Automating Complex Guidelines for Chronic Disease: Lessons Learned J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc., March 1, 2003; 10(2): 154 - 165. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. L. Achour, M. Dojat, C. Rieux, P. Bierling, and E. Lepage A UMLS-based Knowledge Acquisition Tool for Rule-based Clinical Decision Support System Development J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc., July 1, 2001; 8(4): 351 - 360. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. L. Miller Domain-constrained Generation of Clinical Condition Sets to Help Test Computer-based Clinical Guidelines J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc., March 1, 2001; 8(2): 131 - 145. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. N. Shiffman, B. T. Karras, A. Agrawal, R. Chen, L. Marenco, and S. Nath GEM: A Proposal for a More Comprehensive Guideline Document Model Using XML J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc., September 1, 2000; 7(5): 488 - 498. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. H. Payne Computer Decision Support Systems Chest, August 1, 2000; 118(2_suppl): 47S - 52S. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. H. Morris Developing and Implementing Computerized Protocols for Standardization of Clinical Decisions Ann Intern Med, March 7, 2000; 132(5): 373 - 383. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
V. L. Patel and D. R. Kaufman Medical Informatics and the Science of Cognition J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc., November 1, 1998; 5(6): 493 - 502. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
V. L. Patel, V. G. Allen, J. F. Arocha, and E. H. Shortliffe Representing Clinical Guidelines in GLIF: Individual and CollaborativeExpertise J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc., September 1, 1998; 5(5): 467 - 483. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
