Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21603283›Full record

ArticleThe open medical informatics journal2010

Standards for scalable clinical decision support: need, current and emerging standards, gaps, and proposal for progress.

Kensaku Kawamoto, Guilherme Del Fiol, David F Lobach, Robert A Jenders

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The open medical informatics journal, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Decision time for clinical decision support systems.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2014
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Opportunities for genomic clinical decision support interventions.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2013
    Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors.

Kensaku KawamotoDivision of Clinical Informatics, Department of Community and Family Medicine, Box 2914, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA. kawam001@mc.duke.edu
Guilherme Del Fiol
David F Lobach
Robert A Jenders

Funding

Context-Aware Knowledge Delivery into Electronic Health RecordsK01HS018352 · AHRQ · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI DEL FIOL, GUILHERME · 2009 to 2012
$568k
Enabling Personalized Medicine through Clincal Decision SupportK01HG004645 · NHGRI · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI KAWAMOTO, KENSAKU · 2008 to 2010
$559k
AHRQ HHS K01 HS018352NHGRI NIH HHS K01 HG004645
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite their potential to significantly improve health care, advanced clinical decision support (CDS) capabilities are not widely available in the clinical setting. An important reason for this limited availability of CDS capabilities is the application-specific and institution-specific nature of most current CDS implementations. Thus, a critical need for enabling CDS capabilities on a much larger scale is the development and adoption of standards that enable current and emerging CDS resources to be more effectively leveraged across multiple applications and care settings. Standards required for such effective scaling of CDS include (i) standard terminologies and information models to represent and communicate about health care data; (ii) standard approaches to representing clinical knowledge in both human-readable and machine-executable formats; and (iii) standard approaches for leveraging these knowledge resources to provide CDS capabilities across various applications and care settings. A number of standards do exist or are under development to meet these needs. However, many gaps and challenges remain, including the excessive complexity of many standards; the limited availability of easily accessible knowledge resources implemented using standard approaches; and the lack of tooling and other practical resources to enable the efficient adoption of existing standards. Thus, the future development and widespread adoption of current CDS standards will depend critically on the availability of tooling, knowledge bases, and other resources that make the adoption of CDS standards not only the right approach to take, but the cost-effective path to follow given the alternative of using a traditional, ad hoc approach to implementing CDS.

Indexed as

Clinical decision supportHealth Level 7information models.standardsterminologies

Identifiers

PMID21603283
PMCPMC3097480

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.