![]() ![]() ![]() In this context, health consultants and policy makers, as well as researchers, would benefit from automatic ways to extract information from RCTs and synthesize it in order to predict reasonable estimates of outcomes for new trials without waiting for a real-world evidence-based study to be conducted. The volume and rate at which research is produced about behavior change is beyond the capability of human researchers to compare and understand which interventions are most effective and to be able to generalize the results to varying populations in different contexts 8. This is also true for behavior change researchers, health professionals and consultants that explore the literature of behavior change intervention reports, in order to understand the most effective methodology (or intervention) to help a certain population improve a specific target behavior (for example, stopping smoking). More evidence is produced and published than it is possible for researchers to be able to use, synthesize and analyze effectively with these conventional methods 5–7. It is evident that systematic reviews across the vast amount of literature are very time consuming and cannot cope with the fast pace at which new research studies get published. Abbyy hansen manual#However, the time taken to complete them is estimated at about 1,000 hours of highly skilled manual work 3 or 67 weeks 4, from pre-registration stage to publication. Systematic reviews seek to collate evidence that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria in order to answer a specific research question 2. The evidence-based research is so vast that, at present, more than 100 reports of RCTs are published on average every day 1. Medical evidence is disseminated in unstructured, natural language scientific evaluation reports that describe the content and results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |