Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20418155›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of medical informatics2010

An analysis of clinical queries in an electronic health record search utility.

Karthik Natarajan, Daniel Stein, Samat Jain, Noémie Elhadad

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of medical informatics, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Electronic Health Record (EHR) Abstraction.Perspectives in health information managemen · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Antibiotics: A Bibliometric Analysis of Top 100 Classics.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Karthik NatarajanDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, NY 10032, USA. karthik.natarajan@dbmi.columbia.edu
Daniel Stein
Samat Jain
Noémie Elhadad

Funding

Training in Biomedical Informatics at Columbia UniversityT15LM007079 · NLM · COLUMBIA UNIV NEW YORK MORNINGSIDE · PI NOEMIE ELHADAD, GEORGE M HRIPCSAK · 1992 to 2026
$28.9M
NLM NIH HHS 5T15-LM007079-18NLM NIH HHS T15 LM007079
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWhile search engines have become nearly ubiquitous on the Web, electronic health records (EHRs) generally lack search functionality; furthermore, there is no knowledge on how and what healthcare providers search while using an EHR-based search utility. In this study, we sought to understand user needs as captured by their search queries.

methodsThis post-implementation study analyzed user search log files for 6 months from an EHR-based, free-text search utility at our large academic institution. The search logs were de-identified and then analyzed in two steps. First, two investigators classified all the unique queries as navigational, transactional, or informational searches. Second, three physician reviewers categorized a random sample of 357 informational searches into high-level semantic types derived from the Unified Medical Language System (UMLS). The reviewers were given overlapping data sets, such that two physicians reviewed each query.

resultsWe analyzed 2207 queries performed by 436 unique users over a 6-month period. Of the 2207 queries, 980 were unique queries. Users of the search utility included clinicians, researchers and administrative staff. Across the whole user population, approximately 14.5% of the user searches were navigational searches and 85.1% were informational. Within informational searches, we found that users predominantly searched for laboratory results and specific diseases.

conclusionsA variety of user types, ranging from clinicians to administrative staff, took advantage of the EHR-based search utility. Though these users' search behavior differed, they predominantly performed informational searches related to laboratory results and specific diseases. Additionally, a number of queries were part of words, implying the need for a free-text module to be included in any future concept-based search algorithm.

Indexed as

Data MiningMedical Records Systems, ComputerizedNew YorkSearch Engine

Identifiers

PMID20418155
PMCPMC2881186

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.