ReviewYearbook of medical informatics2015
Computerized Clinical Decision Support: Contributions from 2014.
Review in Yearbook of medical informatics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Computerized Clinical Decision Support: Contributions from 2015.Yearbook of medical informatics · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo summarize recent research and propose a selection of best papers published in 2014 in the field of computerized clinical decision support for the Decision Support section of the IMIA yearbook.
methodA literature review was performed by searching two bibliographic databases for papers related to clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) and computerized provider order entry systems in order to select a list of candidate best papers to be then peer-reviewed by external reviewers. A consensus meeting between the two section editors and the editorial team was finally organized to conclude on the selection of best papers.
resultsAmong the 1,254 returned papers published in 2014, the full review process selected four best papers. The first one is an experimental contribution to a better understanding of unintended uses of CDSSs. The second paper describes the effective use of previously collected data to tailor and adapt a CDSS. The third paper presents an innovative application that uses pharmacogenomic information to support personalized medicine. The fourth paper reports on the long-term effect of the routine use of a CDSS for antibiotic therapy.
conclusionsAs health information technologies spread more and more meaningfully, CDSSs are improving to answer users' needs more accurately. The exploitation of previously collected data and the use of genomic data for decision support has started to materialize. However, more work is still needed to address issues related to the correct usage of such technologies, and to assess their effective impact in the long term.
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.