Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25461620›Full record

ArticleThe American journal of gastroenterology2015

Computer-generated vs. physician-documented history of present illness (HPI): results of a blinded comparison.

Christopher V Almario, William Chey, Aung Kaung, Cynthia Whitman, Garth Fuller, Mark Reid, Ken Nguyen, Roger Bolus, Buddy Dennis, Rey Encarnacion and 10 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The American journal of gastroenterology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. User experience of self-reported computerized medical history taking for acute chest pain: The Clinical Expert Operating System Chest Pain Danderyd Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. From statistics to clinics: the visual feedback of PROMIS® CATs.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2021
    Article
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

20 authors.

Christopher V Almario1] Division of Gastroenterology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA [2] Division of Gastroenterology, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California, USA [3] Division of Digestive Diseases, UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA [4] Cedars-Sinai Center for Outcomes Research and Education (CS-CORE), Los Angeles, California, USA.
William CheyDivision of Gastroenterology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Aung Kaung1] Division of Gastroenterology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA [2] Division of Gastroenterology, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Cynthia Whitman1] Division of Gastroenterology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA [2] Cedars-Sinai Center for Outcomes Research and Education (CS-CORE), Los Angeles, California, USA.
Garth Fuller1] Division of Gastroenterology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA [2] Cedars-Sinai Center for Outcomes Research and Education (CS-CORE), Los Angeles, California, USA.
Mark Reid1] Division of Gastroenterology, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California, USA [2] Cedars-Sinai Center for Outcomes Research and Education (CS-CORE), Los Angeles, California, USA.
Ken NguyenDivision of Gastroenterology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Roger BolusCedars-Sinai Center for Outcomes Research and Education (CS-CORE), Los Angeles, California, USA.
Buddy DennisUCLA Computing Technology Research Laboratory (CTRL), Los Angeles, California, USA.
Rey EncarnacionUCLA Computing Technology Research Laboratory (CTRL), Los Angeles, California, USA.
Bibiana Martinez1] Division of Gastroenterology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA [2] Division of Gastroenterology, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California, USA [3] Cedars-Sinai Center for Outcomes Research and Education (CS-CORE), Los Angeles, California, USA.
Jennifer Talley1] Division of Gastroenterology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA [2] Division of Gastroenterology, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California, USA [3] Cedars-Sinai Center for Outcomes Research and Education (CS-CORE), Los Angeles, California, USA.
Rushaba Modi1] Division of Gastroenterology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA [2] Division of Gastroenterology, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California, USA [3] Division of Digestive Diseases, UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Nikhil Agarwal1] Division of Gastroenterology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA [2] Division of Gastroenterology, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California, USA [3] Division of Digestive Diseases, UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Aaron LeeDivision of Gastroenterology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Scott KubomotoDivision of Gastroenterology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Gobind SharmaDivision of Gastroenterology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Sally BolusCedars-Sinai Center for Outcomes Research and Education (CS-CORE), Los Angeles, California, USA.
Lin ChangDivision of Digestive Diseases, UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Brennan M R Spiegel1] Division of Gastroenterology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA [2] Division of Gastroenterology, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California, USA [3] Cedars-Sinai Center for Outcomes Research and Education (CS-CORE), Los Angeles, California, USA.

Funding

Pilot and Feasibility ProgramP30DK041301 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI ROZENGURT, JUAN ENRIQUE · 1990 to 2019
$18.0M
NIH PROMIS Statistical Coordinating Center(RMI)U01AR052177 · NIAMS · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI CELLA, DAVID · 2004 to 2010
$10.6M
GASTROENTEROLOGYT32DK007180 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI JENSEN, DENNIS MICHAEL · 1986 to 2025
$10.0M
Development and Initial Validation of PROMIS GI Distress ScaleU01AR057936 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI KHANNA, DINESH, SPIEGEL, BRENNAN · 2009 to 2013
$2.2M
NIAMS NIH HHS AR052177NIAMS NIH HHS U01 AR052177NIAMS NIH HHS U01 AR057936NIAMS NIH HHS U01 AR057936ANIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK041301NIDDK NIH HHS T32 DK007180NIDDK NIH HHS T32DK07180-39
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesHealthcare delivery now mandates shorter visits with higher documentation requirements, undermining the patient-provider interaction. To improve clinic visit efficiency, we developed a patient-provider portal that systematically collects patient symptoms using a computer algorithm called Automated Evaluation of Gastrointestinal Symptoms (AEGIS). AEGIS also automatically "translates" the patient report into a full narrative history of present illness (HPI). We aimed to compare the quality of computer-generated vs. physician-documented HPIs.

methodsWe performed a cross-sectional study with a paired sample design among individuals visiting outpatient adult gastrointestinal (GI) clinics for evaluation of active GI symptoms. Participants first underwent usual care and then subsequently completed AEGIS. Each individual thereby had both a physician-documented and a computer-generated HPI. Forty-eight blinded physicians assessed HPI quality across six domains using 5-point scales: (i) overall impression, (ii) thoroughness, (iii) usefulness, (iv) organization, (v) succinctness, and (vi) comprehensibility. We compared HPI scores within patient using a repeated measures model.

resultsSeventy-five patients had both computer-generated and physician-documented HPIs. The mean overall impression score for computer-generated HPIs was higher than physician HPIs (3.68 vs. 2.80; P<0.001), even after adjusting for physician and visit type, location, mode of transcription, and demographics. Computer-generated HPIs were also judged more complete (3.70 vs. 2.73; P<0.001), more useful (3.82 vs. 3.04; P<0.001), better organized (3.66 vs. 2.80; P<0.001), more succinct (3.55 vs. 3.17; P<0.001), and more comprehensible (3.66 vs. 2.97; P<0.001).

conclusionsComputer-generated HPIs were of higher overall quality, better organized, and more succinct, comprehensible, complete, and useful compared with HPIs written by physicians during usual care in GI clinics.

Indexed as

Patient SatisfactionPhysical ExaminationPractice Patterns, Physicians'AdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGastrointestinal DiseasesHumansMaleMedical History TakingMiddle AgedPhysiciansPrimary Health CareSymptom Assessment

Identifiers

PMID25461620
PMCPMC4289091

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.