Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22009254›Full record

ReviewJournal of medical systems2012

The adoption and implementation of RFID technologies in healthcare: a literature review.

Wen Yao, Chao-Hsien Chu, Zang Li

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of medical systems, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

58 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Real-time locating systems to improve healthcare delivery: A systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. The promise of digital healthcare technologies.Frontiers in public health · 2023
    Review
  11. Review on Recent Advances and Applications of Passive Harmonic RFID Systems.IEEE journal of radio frequency identification · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

Wen YaoCollege of Information Sciences and Technology, The Pennsylvania State University, 306A, IST Building, University Park, PA 16802, USA. wxy119@psu.edu
Chao-Hsien Chu
Zang Li

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technology not only offers tracking capability to locate equipment, supplies and people in real time, but also provides efficient and accurate access to medical data for health professionals. However, the reality of RFID adoption in healthcare is far behind earlier expectation. This study reviews literature on the use of RFID in healthcare/hospitals following a formal innovation-decision framework. We aim to identify the common applications, potential benefits, barriers, and critical success factors. Our study facilitates quick assessment and provides guidance for researchers and practitioners in adopting RFID in medical arenas. Many earlier adopters in healthcare found RFID to be functional and useful in such areas as asset tracking and patient identification. Major barriers to adoption include technological limitations, interference concerns, prohibitive costs, lack of global standards and privacy concerns. Better designed RFID systems with low cost and privacy issues addressed are needed to increase acceptance of RFID in healthcare.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareDiffusion of InnovationRadio Frequency Identification Device

Identifiers

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.