ArticleJournal of medical systems2014
Past and next 10 years of medical informatics.
Article in Journal of medical systems, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Progress Achieved, Landmarks, and Future Concerns in Biomedical and Health Informatics.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Article
- Biomedical and Health Informatics Education - the IMIA Years.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2016Review
- Leveraging Clinical Informatics in the Conduct of Clinical Trials.Journal of medical systems · 2015Article
- Perioperative Smartphone Apps and Devices for Patient-Centered Care.Journal of medical systems · 2015Article
- Challenges and opportunities in late-stage chronic kidney disease.Clinical kidney journal · 2015Article
- Reflections on 'health care in the information society--a prognosis for the year 2013'.Journal of medical systems · 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
20 authors at 16 institutions in 9 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
More than 10 years ago Haux et al. tried to answer the question how health care provision will look like in the year 2013. A follow-up workshop was held in Braunschweig, Germany, for 2 days in May, 2013, with 20 invited international experts in biomedical and health informatics. Among other things it had the objectives to discuss the suggested goals and measures of 2002 and how priorities on MI research in this context should be set from the viewpoint of today. The goals from 2002 are now as up-to-date as they were then. The experts stated that the three goals: "patient-centred recording and use of medical data for cooperative care"; "process-integrated decision support through current medical knowledge" and "comprehensive use of patient data for research and health care reporting" have not been reached yet and are still relevant. A new goal for ICT in health care should be the support of patient centred personalized (individual) medicine. MI as an academic discipline carries out research concerning tools that support health care professionals in their work. This research should be carried out without the pressure that it should lead to systems that are immediately and directly accepted in practice.
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.