Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26612774›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of medical informatics2016

Formative evaluation of a patient-specific clinical knowledge summarization tool.

Guilherme Del Fiol, Javed Mostafa, Dongqiuye Pu, Richard Medlin, Stacey Slager, Siddhartha R Jonnalagadda, Charlene R Weir

Abstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of medical informatics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Classification of Clinically Useful Sentences in MEDLINE.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2015
    Article
  10. 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

7 authors.

Guilherme Del FiolDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. Electronic address: guilherme.delfiol@utah.edu.
Javed MostafaSchool of Information and Library Science (SILS), University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Dongqiuye PuSchool of Information and Library Science (SILS), University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Richard MedlinSchool of Information and Library Science (SILS), University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Stacey SlagerDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Siddhartha R JonnalagaddaDivision of Health and Biomedical Informatics, Department of Preventive Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.
Charlene R WeirDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.

Funding

Meeting Clinicians' Information Needs with Highly Tailored Knowledge SummariesR01LM011416 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI DEL FIOL, GUILHERME · 2013 to 2016
$1.3M
Improving the Efficiency and Efficacy in Authoring Essential Clinical FAQsR00LM011389 · NLM · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI JONNALAGADDA, SIDDHARTHA REDDY · 2013 to 2015
$665k
NLM NIH HHS 1R01LM011416-02NLM NIH HHS 4R00LM011389-02NLM NIH HHS R00 LM011389NLM NIH HHS R01 LM011416
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo iteratively design a prototype of a computerized clinical knowledge summarization (CKS) tool aimed at helping clinicians finding answers to their clinical questions; and to conduct a formative assessment of the usability, usefulness, efficiency, and impact of the CKS prototype on physicians' perceived decision quality compared with standard search of UpToDate and PubMed. MATERIALS AND

methodsMixed-methods observations of the interactions of 10 physicians with the CKS prototype vs. standard search in an effort to solve clinical problems posed as case vignettes.

resultsThe CKS tool automatically summarizes patient-specific and actionable clinical recommendations from PubMed (high quality randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews) and UpToDate. Two thirds of the study participants completed 15 out of 17 usability tasks. The median time to task completion was less than 10s for 12 of the 17 tasks. The difference in search time between the CKS and standard search was not significant (median=4.9 vs. 4.5m in). Physician's perceived decision quality was significantly higher with the CKS than with manual search (mean=16.6 vs. 14.4; p=0.036).

conclusionsThe CKS prototype was well-accepted by physicians both in terms of usability and usefulness. Physicians perceived better decision quality with the CKS prototype compared to standard search of PubMed and UpToDate within a similar search time. Due to the formative nature of this study and a small sample size, conclusions regarding efficiency and efficacy are exploratory.

Indexed as

Medical Record LinkagePatient-Specific ModelingDecision Support Systems, ClinicalHumansKnowledge ManagementPattern Recognition, AutomatedProblem SolvingSystems IntegrationClinical decision supportInformation needsInformation seeking and retrievalOnline information resources

Identifiers

PMID26612774
PMCPMC4701588

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.