ArticleProceedings. AMIA Symposium2000
An information system for improving clinical laboratory outcomes.
Article in Proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Laboratories performing clinical molecular diagnostic and cytogenetic testing require improved information systems to address their specialized data processing needs. We developed an application that automates result reporting, documents quality assurance information, and tracks specimens. While similar functionality was implemented in both the molecular diagnostic and cytogenetic modules, we present an outcome assessment of the cytogenetic laboratory's use of the system since it maintained a relatively constant number of personnel, test procedures, and samples over a three-year period. Upon implementation, significant reductions occurred in the time taken from receipt of sample to the release of the final report by 44% (P < 0.001) and 48% (P < 0.001) for peripheral blood and bone marrow samples, respectively. The number of cases processed per technologist increased by 26% (P = 0.017). We attribute these gains in quality improvement to the automation of clerical tasks and decision support provided by the information system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
11079837PMC2243994What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.