help button home button JAMIA Bigger figures
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Piniewski-Bond, J. F.
Right arrow Articles by Weiner, J. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Piniewski-Bond, J. F.
Right arrow Articles by Weiner, J. M.
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 8:174-184 (2001)
© 2001 American Medical Informatics Association


Research Paper

Comparison of Information Processing Technologies

Joanne F. Piniewski-Bond, MS, Germaine M. Buck, PhD, Roberta S. Horowitz, PhD, John H.R. Schuster, Douglas L. Weed, MD, MPH, PhD and John M. Weiner, Dr PH

Affiliation of the authors: State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York (JFP, GMB, RSH, JHRS, JMW), and National Center Institute, Bethesda, Maryland (DLW).

Correspondence and reprints: Joanne F. Bond, MS, Educational Affairs Office, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY 14263; e-mail: <joanne.bond{at}roswellpark.org>.

Objective: To examine the type of information obtainable from scientific papers, using three different methods for the extraction, organization, and preparation of literature reviews.

Design: A set of three review papers was identified, and the ideas represented by the authors of those papers were extracted. The 161 articles referenced in those three reviews were then analyzed using 1) a formalized data extraction approach, which uses a protocol-driven manual process to extract the variables, values, and statistical significance of the stated relationships; and 2) a computerized approach known as "Idea Analysis," which uses the abstracts of the original articles and processes them through a computer software program that reads the abstracts and organizes the ideas presented by the authors. The results were then compared. The literature focused on the human papillomavirus and its relationship to cervical cancer.

Results: Idea Analysis was able to identify 68.9 percent of the ideas considered by the authors of the three review papers to be of importance in describing the association between human papillomavirus and cervical cancer. The formalized data extraction identified 27 percent of the authors' ideas. The combination of the two approaches identified 74.3 percent of the ideas considered important in the relationship between human papillomavirus and cervical cancer, as reported by the authors of the three review articles.

Conclusion: This research demonstrated that both a technically derived and a computer derived collection, categorization, and summarization of original articles and abstracts could provide a reliable, valid, and reproducible source of ideas duplicating, to a major degree, the ideas presented by subject specialists in review articles. As such, these tools may be useful to experts preparing literature reviews by eliminating many of the clerical-mechanical features associated with present-day scientific text processing.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc.Home page
W. W. Stead and P. F. Brennan
Get Both the Medicine and the Informatics Right
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc., March 1, 2001; 8(2): 192 - 192.
[Full Text]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2001 by the American Medical Informatics Association.