Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23897840›Full record

ReviewPhysiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy2015

Possibilities and Implications of Using the ICF and Other Vocabulary Standards in Electronic Health Records.

Daniel J Vreeman, Christophe Richoz

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Daniel J VreemanBiomedical Informatics, Regenstrief Institute, Inc., Indianapolis, IN, 46202-3012, USA.
Christophe RichozAdvanced Computing Research Centre, Health Informatics Lab, University of South Australia, Mawson Lakes, South Australia, 5095, Australia.
Regenstrief Institute · USUniversity of South Australia · AU

Funding

NLM NIH HHS HHSN276200800006C
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is now widespread recognition of the powerful potential of electronic health record (EHR) systems to improve the health-care delivery system. The benefits of EHRs grow even larger when the health data within their purview are seamlessly shared, aggregated and processed across different providers, settings and institutions. Yet, the plethora of idiosyncratic conventions for identifying the same clinical content in different information systems is a fundamental barrier to fully leveraging the potential of EHRs. Only by adopting vocabulary standards that provide the lingua franca across these local dialects can computers efficiently move, aggregate and use health data for decision support, outcomes management, quality reporting, research and many other purposes. In this regard, the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) is an important standard for physiotherapists because it provides a framework and standard language for describing health and health-related states. However, physiotherapists and other health-care professionals capture a wide range of data such as patient histories, clinical findings, tests and measurements, procedures, and so on, for which other vocabulary standards such as Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes and Systematized Nomenclature Of Medicine Clinical Terms are crucial for interoperable communication between different electronic systems. In this paper, we describe how the ICF and other internationally accepted vocabulary standards could advance physiotherapy practise and research by enabling data sharing and reuse by EHRs. We highlight how these different vocabulary standards fit together within a comprehensive record system, and how EHRs can make use of them, with a particular focus on enhancing decision-making. By incorporating the ICF and other internationally accepted vocabulary standards into our clinical information systems, physiotherapists will be able to leverage the potent capabilities of EHRs and contribute our unique clinical perspective to other health-care providers within the emerging electronic health information infrastructure.

Indexed as

Outcome Assessment, Health CareDisability EvaluationElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHumansInternational Classification of Functioning, Disability and HealthMalePersons with DisabilitiesUnited StatesVocabularycontrolledICFlogical observation identifiers names and codessystematized nomenclature of medicinevocabulary

Identifiers

PMID23897840
PMCPMC3907616
OpenAlexW1844194564

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.