ArticleJournal of medical systems2010
A health examination system integrated with clinical decision support system.
Article in Journal of medical systems, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A knowledge-based clinical decision support system for personalized health examination items in China: design and evaluation.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- A rule-based clinical decision model to support interpretation of multiple data in health examinations.Journal of medical systems · 2011Article
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 play a key role in preventive medicine. We propose a health examination system named Health Examination Automatic Logic System (HEALS) to assist clinical workers in improving the total quality of health examinations. Quality of automated inference is confirmed by the zero inference error where during 6 months and 14,773 cases. Automated inference time is less than one second per case in contrast to 2 to 5 min for physicians. The most significant result of efficiency evaluation is that 3,494 of 4,356 (80.2%) cases take less than 3 min per case for producing a report summary. In the evaluation of effectiveness, novice physicians got 18% improvement in making decisions with the assistance of our system. We conclude that a health examination system with a clinical decision system can greatly reduce the mundane burden on clinical workers and markedly improve the quality and efficiency of health examination tasks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20703626What 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.