ReviewJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine2011
Data re-entry overload: time for a paradigm shift in maternity IT?
Review in Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- In a maternity shared-care environment, what do we know about the paper hand-held and electronic health record: a systematic literature review.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2014Pooled it
- The development of a theory-based eHealth app prototype to promote oral health during prenatal care visits.Translational behavioral medicine · 2019Article
- Reporting errors, incidence and risk factors for postpartum haemorrhage and progression to severe PPH: a prospective observational study.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2014Observational
- Data re-entry overload: time for a paradigm shift in maternity information technology?Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper provides an overview of maternity information technology (IT) in Britain, questioning the usability, effectiveness and cost efficiency of the current models of implementation of electronic maternity records. UK experience of hand-held paper obstetric notes and computerized records reveals fundamental problems in the relationship between the two complementary methods of recording maternity data. The assumption that paper records would inevitably be replaced by electronic substitutes has proven false; the rigidity of analysable electronic records has led to immense incompatibility problems. The flexibility of paper records has distinct advantages that have so far not been sufficiently acknowledged. It is suggested that continuing work is needed to encourage the standardization of electronic maternity records, via a new co-creative, co-development approach and continuing international electronic community debate.
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.