ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2010
Creating and Evaluating a Dynamic Study Randomization and Enrollment Tool within a Robust EHRs.
Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Randomized trials are difficult to perform in resource-limited settings. We developed a Randomization and Enrollment Tool (RET) within a live EHRs which automated enrollment, randomization, and data-collection in support of robust EHRs-based randomized interventions. We describe an observational assessment of RET which we piloted at three Kenyan HIV clinics for a decision support trial. We manually evaluated RET's adequacy and accuracy in its core functions. RET enrolled 327/6626 patients, 100% meeting criteria based on EHRs data. Human reviews reveal that only 250 patients (76.5%) should have been enrolled as the EHRs contained inaccurate data for the other 77 (23.4%). 23 eligible patients were also missed through sole reliance on EHRs data. 18 (5.5%) RET-enrolled patients never received the intervention because of missed appointments. An automated randomization tool has potential to reduce human and financial costs of conducting EHRs-based randomized trials, but remains vulnerable to data quality and workflow limitations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21347032PMC3041308What 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.