Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26911809›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2016

Modeling information flows in clinical decision support: key insights for enhancing system effectiveness.

Stephanie Medlock, Jeremy C Wyatt, Vimla L Patel, Edward H Shortliffe, Ameen Abu-Hanna

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Intelligent Reasoning Cues: A Framework and Case Study of the Roles of AI Information in Complex Decisions.Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. CHI Conference · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Using guideline-based clinical decision support in oncological multidisciplinary team meetings: A prospective, multicenter concordance study.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2022
    Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  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

5 authors.

Stephanie MedlockDepartment of Medical Informatics, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands s.k.medlock@amc.uva.nl.
Jeremy C WyattYorkshire Centre for Health Informatics, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK Wessex Institute of Health, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK s.k.medlock@amc.uva.nl.
Vimla L PatelCenter for Cognitive Studies in Medicine and Public Health, The New York Academy of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Edward H ShortliffeDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
Ameen Abu-HannaDepartment of Medical Informatics, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A fundamental challenge in the field of clinical decision support is to determine what characteristics of systems make them effective in supporting particular types of clinical decisions. However, we lack such a theory of decision support itself and a model to describe clinical decisions and the systems to support them. This article outlines such a framework. We present a two-stream model of information flow within clinical decision-support systems (CDSSs): reasoning about the patient (the clinical stream), and reasoning about the user (the cognitive-behavioral stream). We propose that CDSS "effectiveness" be measured not only in terms of a system's impact on clinical care, but also in terms of how (and by whom) the system is used, its effect on work processes, and whether it facilitates appropriate decisions by clinicians and patients. Future research into which factors improve the effectiveness of decision support should not regard CDSSs as a single entity, but should instead differentiate systems based on their attributes, users, and the decision being supported.

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalDecision Support TechniquesEfficiency, OrganizationalHumansUser-Computer InterfaceWorkflowclinicaldecision makingdecision-support systemsuser-computer interfaceworkflow

Identifiers

PMID26911809
PMCPMC11741008

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.