ArticleEGEMS (Washington, DC)2015
CDS, UX, and System Redesign - Promising Techniques and Tools to Bridge the Evidence Gap.
Article in EGEMS (Washington, DC), 2015. 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.
- Concordium 2016: Data and Knowledge Transforming Health.EGEMS (Washington, DC) · 2017Article
- Knowledge translation of an online tool to determine candidacy for epilepsy surgery evaluation.Neurology. Clinical practice · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn this special issue of eGEMs, we explore the struggles related to bringing evidence into day-to-day practice, what I define as the "evidence gap." We are all aware of high quality evidence in the form of guidelines, randomized clinical trials for treatments and diagnostic tests, and clinical prediction rules, which are all readily available online. We also know that electronic health records (EHRs) are now ubiquitous in health care and in most practices across the country. How we marry this high quality evidence and the practice of medicine through effective decision support is a major challenge. ABOUT THE ISSUE: All of the articles in this issue explore, in some fashion, CDS systems and how we can best bring providers and their work environment to the evidence. We are at the very early stages of the science of usability. Much more research and funding is needed in this area if we hope to improve the dissemination and implementation of evidence in practice. While the featured examples, techniques, and tools in the special issue are a promising start to improving usability and CDS, many of the papers highlight current gaps in knowledge and a great need for generalizable approaches. The great promise is for "learning" approaches to generate new evidence and to integrate this evidence in reliable, patient-centered ways at scale using new technology. Closing the evidence gap is a real possibility, but only if the community works together to innovate and invest in research on the best ways to disseminate, communicate, and implement evidence 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.