ArticleJournal of medical systems2014
The reliability of an epilepsy treatment clinical decision support system.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A nonparametric Bayesian method of translating machine learning scores to probabilities in clinical decision support.BMC bioinformatics · 2017Article
- Effects of an e-Prescribing interface redesign on rates of generic drug prescribing: exploiting default options.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We developed a content validated computerized epilepsy treatment clinical decision support system to assist clinicians with selecting the best antiepilepsy treatments. Before disseminating our computerized epilepsy treatment clinical decision support system, further rigorous validation testing was necessary. As reliability is a precondition of validity, we verified proof of reliability first. We evaluated the consistency of the epilepsy treatment clinical decision support system in three areas including the preferred antiepilepsy drug choice, the top three recommended choices, and the rank order of the three choices. We demonstrated 100% reliability on 15,000 executions involving a three-step process on five different common pediatric epilepsy syndromes. Evidence for the reliability of the epilepsy treatment clinical decision support system was essential for the long-term viability of the system, and served as a crucial component for the next phase of system validation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25086612What 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.