Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21113076›Full record

Trial reportJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA

Full impact of laboratory information system requires direct use by clinical staff: cluster randomized controlled trial.

Joaquín A Blaya, Sonya Shin, Carmen Contreras, Gloria Yale, Carmen Suarez, Luis Asencios, Jihoon Kim, Pablo Rodriguez, Peter Cegielski, Hamish S F Fraser

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report 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 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

10 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Joaquín A BlayaPartners In Health, Division of Global Health Equity, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA. jblaya@hms.harvard.edu
Sonya Shin
Carmen Contreras
Gloria Yale
Carmen Suarez
Luis Asencios
Jihoon Kim
Pablo Rodriguez
Peter Cegielski
Hamish S F Fraser
Brigham and Women's Hospital · USEsSALUD · PECenters for Disease Control and Prevention · USHarvard University · USInstituto Nacional de Salud · PEUniversity of California, San Diego · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the time to communicate laboratory results to health centers (HCs) between the e-Chasqui web-based information system and the pre-existing paper-based system.

methodsCluster randomized controlled trial in 78 HCs in Peru. In the intervention group, 12 HCs had web access to results via e-Chasqui (point-of-care HCs) and forwarded results to 17 peripheral HCs. In the control group, 22 point-of-care HCs received paper results directly and forwarded them to 27 peripheral HCs. Baseline data were collected for 15 months. Post-randomization data were collected for at least 2 years. Comparisons were made between intervention and control groups, stratified by point-of-care versus peripheral HCs.

resultsFor point-of-care HCs, the intervention group took less time to receive drug susceptibility tests (DSTs) (median 9 vs 16 days, p<0.001) and culture results (4 vs 8 days, p<0.001) and had a lower proportion of 'late' DSTs taking >60 days to arrive (p<0.001) than the control. For peripheral HCs, the intervention group had similar communication times for DST (median 22 vs 19 days, p=0.30) and culture (10 vs 9 days, p=0.10) results, as well as proportion of 'late' DSTs (p=0.57) compared with the control.

conclusionsOnly point-of-care HCs with direct access to the e-Chasqui information system had reduced communication times and fewer results with delays of >2 months. Peripheral HCs had no benefits from the system. This suggests that health establishments should have point-of-care access to reap the benefits of electronic laboratory reporting.

Indexed as

Efficiency, OrganizationalInformation DisseminationClinical Laboratory Information SystemsHumansIntention to Treat AnalysisInternetMulti-Institutional SystemsNational Health ProgramsPeruPoint-of-Care SystemsTime FactorsTuberculosis

Identifiers

PMID21113076
PMCPMC3005868
OpenAlexW2132696680

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.