Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26902081›Full record

SynthesisJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2017

Precision diagnosis: a view of the clinical decision support systems (CDSS) landscape through the lens of critical care.

Arnaud Belard, Timothy Buchman, Jonathan Forsberg, Benjamin K Potter, Christopher J Dente, Allan Kirk, Eric Elster

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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.

Arnaud BelardUniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, USA. arnaud.belard.ctr@usuhs.edu.
Timothy BuchmanEmory University and Grady Memorial Hospital, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Jonathan ForsbergUniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Benjamin K PotterUniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Christopher J DenteEmory University and Grady Memorial Hospital, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Allan KirkDuke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Eric ElsterUniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Improving diagnosis and treatment depends on clinical monitoring and computing. Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) have been in existence for over 50 years. While the literature points to positive impacts on quality and patient safety, outcomes, and the avoidance of medical errors, technical and regulatory challenges continue to retard their rate of integration into clinical care processes and thus delay the refinement of diagnoses towards personalized care. We conducted a systematic review of pertinent articles in the MEDLINE, US Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Health Research and Quality, and US Food and Drug Administration databases, using a Boolean approach to combine terms germane to the discussion (clinical decision support, tools, systems, critical care, trauma, outcome, cost savings, NSQIP, APACHE, SOFA, ICU, and diagnostics). References were selected on the basis of both temporal and thematic relevance, and subsequently aggregated around four distinct themes: the uses of CDSS in the critical and surgical care settings, clinical insertion challenges, utilization leading to cost-savings, and regulatory concerns. Precision diagnosis is the accurate and timely explanation of each patient's health problem and further requires communication of that explanation to patients and surrogate decision-makers. Both accuracy and timeliness are essential to critical care, yet computed decision support systems (CDSS) are scarce. The limitation arises from the technical complexity associated with integrating and filtering large data sets from diverse sources. Provider mistrust and resistance coupled with the absence of clear guidance from regulatory bodies further retard acceptance of CDSS. While challenges to develop and deploy CDSS are substantial, the clinical, quality, and economic impacts warrant the effort, especially in disciplines requiring complex decision-making, such as critical and surgical care. Improving diagnosis in health care requires accumulation, validation and transformation of data into actionable information. The aggregate of those processes-CDSS-is currently primitive. Despite technical and regulatory challenges, the apparent clinical and economic utilities of CDSS must lead to greater engagement. These tools play the key role in realizing the vision of a more 'personalized medicine', one characterized by individualized precision diagnosis rather than population-based risk-stratification.

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalAlgorithmsCritical CareDevice ApprovalEquipment DesignHealth Care CostsHumansMedical ErrorsMonitoring, IntraoperativeMonitoring, PhysiologicPatient SafetyPrecision MedicineReproducibility of ResultsRiskSignal Processing, Computer-AssistedTreatment OutcomeCDSSClinical decision support systemsComplex careCritical careHealthcare analyticsPersonalized medicine

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.