Trial reportJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA
Point-of-care clinical documentation: assessment of a bladder cancer informatics tool (eCancerCareBladder): a randomized controlled study of efficacy, efficiency and user friendliness compared with standard electronic medical records.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Structured panendoscopy reports improve report completeness and documentation time.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Bladder image stitching algorithm for navigation and referencing using a standard cystoscope.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- [Current developments on digitalization : Analysis of quality and economics in healthcare].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the use of structured reporting software and the standard electronic medical records (EMR) in the management of patients with bladder cancer. The use of a human factors laboratory to study management of disease using simulated clinical scenarios was also assessed.
designeCancerCare(Bladder) and the EMR were used to retrieve data and produce clinical reports. Twelve participants (four attending staff, four fellows, and four residents) used either eCancerCare(Bladder) or the EMR in two clinical scenarios simulating cystoscopy surveillance visits for bladder cancer follow-up. MEASUREMENTS: Time to retrieve and quality of review of the patient history; time to produce and completeness of a cystoscopy report. Finally, participants provided a global assessment of their computer literacy, familiarity with the two systems, and system preference.
resultseCancerCare(Bladder) was faster for data retrieval (scenario 1: 146 s vs 245 s, p=0.019; scenario 2: 306 vs 415 s, NS), but non-significantly slower to generate a clinical report. The quality of the report was better in the eCancerCare(Bladder) system (scenario 1: p<0.001; scenario 2: p=0.11). User satisfaction was higher with the eCancerCare(Bladder) system, and 11/12 participants preferred to use this system. LIMITATIONS: The small sample size affected the power of our study to detect differences.
conclusionsUse of a specific data management tool does not appear to significantly reduce user time, but the results suggest improvement in the level of care and documentation and preference by users. Also, the use of simulated scenarios in a laboratory setting appears to be a valid method for comparing the usability of clinical software.
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.