Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27107451›Full record

SynthesisJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2017

An appraisal of published usability evaluations of electronic health records via systematic review.

Marc A Ellsworth, Mikhail Dziadzko, John C O'Horo, Ann M Farrell, Jiajie Zhang, Vitaly Herasevich

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

6 authors.

Marc A EllsworthDivision of Neonatal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA ellsworth.marc@mayo.edu.
Mikhail DziadzkoMultidisciplinary Epidemiology and Translational Research in Critical Care, Emergency and Perioperative Medicine (METRIC-PM) Group, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
John C O'HoroMultidisciplinary Epidemiology and Translational Research in Critical Care, Emergency and Perioperative Medicine (METRIC-PM) Group, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Ann M FarrellMayo Clinic Libraries, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Jiajie ZhangSchool of Health Information Sciences, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA.
Vitaly HerasevichMultidisciplinary Epidemiology and Translational Research in Critical Care, Emergency and Perioperative Medicine (METRIC-PM) Group, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveIn this systematic review, we aimed to evaluate methodological and reporting trends present in the current literature by investigating published usability studies of electronic health records (EHRs).

methodsA literature search was conducted for articles published through January 2015 using MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science, supplemented by citation and reference list reviews. Studies were included if they tested the usability of hospital and clinic EHR systems in the inpatient, outpatient, emergency department, or operating room setting.

resultsA total of 4848 references were identified for title and abstract screening. Full text screening was performed for 197 articles, with 120 meeting the criteria for study inclusion.

conclusionA review of the literature demonstrates a paucity of quality published studies describing scientifically valid and reproducible usability evaluations at various stages of EHR system development. A lack of formal and standardized reporting of EHR usability evaluation results is a major contributor to this knowledge gap, and efforts to improve this deficiency will be one step of moving the field of usability engineering forward.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsEvaluation Studies as TopicHumansMedical Informaticselectronic health recordshealth information technologyhuman factorsusability

Identifiers

PMID27107451
PMCPMC7654077

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.