ReviewCurrent oncology reports2013
Electronic medical records and quality of cancer care.
Review in Current oncology reports, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The anatomy of electronic patient record ethics: a framework to guide design, development, implementation, and use.BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
- Examination and diagnosis of electronic patient records and their associated ethics: a scoping literature review.BMC medical ethics · 2020Article
- Are family physicians comprehensively using electronic medical records such that the data can be used for secondary purposes? A Canadian perspective.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2015Article
- Implementing a regional oncology information system: approach and lessons learned.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The implementation of electronic medical records (EMR) systems was mandated by the U.S. federal government in large part due to research indicating that difficulty accessing clinical data was one of the most common causes of preventable deaths. Several assumptions were implicit in this mandate, including the assumption that the implementation of EMR would indeed improve clinicians' access to clinical data, that implementation of EMR would pose little to no risk to patients, and that the clinical benefit of improved access to clinical data would outweigh any risks that might arise. As detailed in this review, both formal research and extensive experiential observation have called all three assumptions into question. Specifically, as detailed below, there is clear evidence that EMR systems are associated with multiple specific risks to patients, whereas few, if any, scientifically rigorous outcomes-based studies have demonstrated that the potential benefits of EMR outweigh the known risks. In addition, there is currently little to no scientifically rigorous evidence that EMR systems constitute a cost-effective methodology for improving patient outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24097283What 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.