ArticleJournal of medical systems2011
A rule-based clinical decision model to support interpretation of multiple data in health examinations.
Article in Journal of medical systems, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Interpretability of Clinical Decision Support Systems Based on Artificial Intelligence from Technological and Medical Perspective: A Systematic Review.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2023Pooled it
- Supporting breast cancer decisions using formalized guidelines and experts decision patterns: initial prototype and evaluation.Health information science and systems · 2017Article
- Design and Development of a Sharable Clinical Decision Support System Based on a Semantic Web Service Framework.Journal of medical systems · 2016Article
- Implementation of Hepatitis Information Management System in Iran.Global journal of health science · 2015Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Health examinations can obtain relatively complete health information and thus are important for the personal and public health management. For clinicians, one of the most important works in the health examinations is to interpret the health examination results. Continuously interpreting numerous health examination results of healthcare receivers is tedious and error-prone. This paper proposes a clinical decision support system to assist solving above problems. In order to customize the clinical decision support system intuitively and flexibly, this paper also proposes the rule syntax to implement computer-interpretable logic for health examinations. It is our purpose in this paper to describe the methodology of the proposed clinical decision support system. The evaluation was performed by the implementation and execution of decision rules on health examination results and a survey on clinical decision support system users. It reveals the efficiency and user satisfaction of proposed clinical decision support system. Positive impact of clinical data interpretation is also noted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20703517What 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.