ArticleApplied clinical informatics2013
Comparison of manual versus automated data collection method for an evidence-based nursing practice study.
Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- ENflorA: a flexible tool for the bulk submission of next generation sequencing data to the European Nucleotide Archive.BMC bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Validation of automated data abstraction for SCCM discovery VIRUS COVID-19 registry: practical EHR export pathways (VIRUS-PEEP).Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Comparing automated vs. manual data collection for COVID-specific medications from electronic health records.International journal of medical informatics · 2022Article
- Automated documentation of vital parameters in wards using portable stations - Effect on proper triggering of the rapid response team: a study protocol of a cluster randomized clinical trial.Revista Brasileira de terapia intensiva · 2022Article
- Increasing Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness by Automating the Authoring of the Development Safety Update Report.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2021Review
- The Role of Information Systems to Manage Cerebral Palsy.Iranian journal of child neurology · 2016Review
- Effectiveness of Using Mobile Phone Image Capture for Collecting Secondary Data: A Case Study on Immunization History Data Among Children in Remote Areas of Thailand.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2015Article
- Characterizing drug-induced stuttering in electronic health records.Journal of communication disordersArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this study was to investigate and improve the use of automated data collection procedures for nursing research and quality assurance.
methodsA descriptive, correlational study analyzed 44 orthopedic surgical patients who were part of an evidence-based practice (EBP) project examining post-operative oxygen therapy at a Midwestern hospital. The automation work attempted to replicate a manually-collected data set from the EBP project.
resultsAutomation was successful in replicating data collection for study data elements that were available in the clinical data repository. The automation procedures identified 32 "false negative" patients who met the inclusion criteria described in the EBP project but were not selected during the manual data collection. Automating data collection for certain data elements, such as oxygen saturation, proved challenging because of workflow and practice variations and the reliance on disparate sources for data abstraction. Automation also revealed instances of human error including computational and transcription errors as well as incomplete selection of eligible patients.
conclusionAutomated data collection for analysis of nursing-specific phenomenon is potentially superior to manual data collection methods. Creation of automated reports and analysis may require initial up-front investment with collaboration between clinicians, researchers and information technology specialists who can manage the ambiguities and challenges of research and quality assurance work in healthcare.
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.