ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2014
An automated approach for ranking journals to help in clinician decision support.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Point of care access to knowledge from full text journal articles supports decision-making and decreases medical errors. However, it is an overwhelming task to search through full text journal articles and find quality information needed by clinicians. We developed a method to rate journals for a given clinical topic, Congestive Heart Failure (CHF). Our method enables filtering of journals and ranking of journal articles based on source journal in relation to CHF. We also obtained a journal priority score, which automatically rates any journal based on its importance to CHF. Comparing our ranking with data gathered by surveying 169 cardiologists, who publish on CHF, our best Multiple Linear Regression model showed a correlation of 0.880, based on five-fold cross validation. Our ranking system can be extended to other clinical topics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25954382PMC4420004What 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.