ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2014
Health information technology: use it well, or don't! Findings from the use of a decision support system for breast cancer management.
Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Characteristics and impact of interventions to support healthcare providers' compliance with guideline recommendations for breast cancer: a systematic literature review.Implementation science : IS · 2023Pooled it
- Using guideline-based clinical decision support in oncological multidisciplinary team meetings: A prospective, multicenter concordance study.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2022Observational
- The Effect of Higher Level Computerized Clinical Decision Support Systems on Oncology Care: A Systematic Review.Cancers · 2020Review
- Computerized Clinical Decision Support: Contributions from 2014.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The potential of health information technology is hampered by new types of errors which impact is not totally assessed. OncoDoc2 is a decision support system designed to support treatment decisions of multidisciplinary meetings (MDMs) for breast cancer patients. We evaluated how the way the system was used had an impact on MDM decision compliance with clinical practice guidelines. We distinguished "correct navigations" (N+), "incorrect navigations" (N-), and "missing navigations" (N0), according to the quality of data entry when using OncoDoc2. We collected 557 MDM decisions from three hospitals of Paris area (France) where OncoDoc2 was routinely used. We observed 33.9% N+, 36.8% N-, and 29.3% N0. The compliance rate was significantly different according to the quality of navigations, 94.2%, 80.0%, and 90.2% for N+, N-, and N0 respectively. Surprinsingly, it was better not to use the system (N0) than to use it improperly (N-).
Indexed as
Identifiers
25954334PMC4419891What 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.