ReviewJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA
A review on systematic reviews of health information system studies.
Review in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 8 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
56 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Routine Health Information Systems in the European Context: A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Pooled it
- The State of Evidence in Patient Portals: Umbrella Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Pooled it
- Routine Health Information System (RHIS) improvements for strengthened health system management.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Context-sensitive decision support (infobuttons) in electronic health records: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2017Pooled it
- A Systematic Investigation on Barriers and Critical Success Factors for Clinical Information Systems in Integrated Care Settings.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2015Pooled it
- Conditions potentially sensitive to a personal health record (PHR) intervention, a systematic review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2015Pooled it
- Impact of electronic medical record on physician practice in office settings: a systematic review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2012Pooled it
- Health information technologies in geriatrics and gerontology: a mixed systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIAPooled it
- Effectiveness of digital platform in reducing unintentional medication discrepancies at transition of care from hospital discharge to primary healthcare settings: a randomised controlled trial.BMC primary care · 2025Trial
- Effect of a computerized decision support system on the treatment approach of stage III or IV pressure injury in patients with spinal cord injury: a feasibility study.BMC health services research · 2023Trial
- Implementation of an electronic medical record does not change delivery of preventive care for HIV-positive patients.International journal of medical informatics · 2014Trial
- [Telegeriatrics for chronic disease management through polypharmacy reduction in primary health careTelegeriatria para o controle de doenças crônicas por meio da redução da polifarmácia na atenção primária à saúde].Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2026Article
- Article
- Cashing in: cost-benefit analysis framework for digital hospitals.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Development of a communication platform for patients with head and neck cancer for effective information delivery and improvement of doctor-patient relationship: application of treatment journey-based service blueprint.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Review
- Recent trends of healthcare information and communication technologies in pediatrics: a systematic review.Clinical and experimental pediatrics · 2022Article
- Computer-Based Decision Tools for Shared Therapeutic Decision-making in Oncology: Systematic Review.JMIR cancer · 2021Review
- Capturing the Impact of Patient Portals Based on the Quadruple Aim and Benefits Evaluation Frameworks: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- Acceptability of Standardized EEG Reporting in an Electronic Health Record.Journal of clinical neurophysiology : official publication of the American Electroencephalographic Society · 2020Review
- Customer relationship management systems (CRMS) in the healthcare environment: A systematic literature review.Computer standards & interfaces · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The purpose of this review is to consolidate existing evidence from published systematic reviews on health information system (HIS) evaluation studies to inform HIS practice and research. Fifty reviews published during 1994-2008 were selected for meta-level synthesis. These reviews covered five areas: medication management, preventive care, health conditions, data quality, and care process/outcome. After reconciliation for duplicates, 1276 HIS studies were arrived at as the non-overlapping corpus. On the basis of a subset of 287 controlled HIS studies, there is some evidence for improved quality of care, but in varying degrees across topic areas. For instance, 31/43 (72%) controlled HIS studies had positive results using preventive care reminders, mostly through guideline adherence such as immunization and health screening. Key factors that influence HIS success included having in-house systems, developers as users, integrated decision support and benchmark practices, and addressing such contextual issues as provider knowledge and perception, incentives, and legislation/policy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.