ReviewThe Journal of surgical research2016
Review of information technology for surgical patient care.
Review in The Journal of surgical research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Generative Artificial Intelligence in Academic Surgery: Ethical Implications and Transformative Potential.The Journal of surgical research · 2025Review
- The World's consumption of free web-based Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery educational resources: A global assessment of video usage trends.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2024Article
- Patient awareness and attitudes towards minimally invasive surgery.Bioinformation · 2024Article
- "Minimally invasive research?" Use of the electronic health record to facilitate research in pediatric urology.Journal of pediatric urology · 2018Review
- Surgical Informatics: Defining the Role of Informatics in the Current Surgical Training Paradigm.Journal of surgical educationArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundElectronic health records (EHRs), computerized provider order entry (CPOE), and patient portals have experienced increased adoption by health care systems. The objective of this study was to review evidence regarding the impact of such health information technologies (HIT) on surgical practice. MATERIALS AND
methodsA search of Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library was performed to identify data-driven, nonsurvey studies about the effects of HIT on surgical care. Domain experts were queried for relevant articles. Two authors independently reviewed abstracts for inclusion criteria and analyzed full text of eligible articles.
resultsA total of 2890 citations were identified. Of them, 32 observational studies and two randomized controlled trials met eligibility criteria. EHR or CPOE improved appropriate antibiotic administration for surgical procedures in 13 comparative observational studies. Five comparative observational studies indicated that electronically generated operative notes had increased accuracy, completeness, and availability in the medical record. The Internet as an information resource about surgical procedures was generally inadequate. Surgical patients and providers demonstrated rapid adoption of patient portals, with increasing proportions of online versus inperson outpatient surgical encounters.
conclusionsThe overall quality of evidence about the effects of HIT in surgical practice was low. Current data suggest an improvement in appropriate perioperative antibiotic administration and accuracy of operative reports from CPOE and EHR applications. Online consumer health educational resources and patient portals are popular among patients and families, but their impact has not been studied well in surgical populations. With increasing adoption of HIT, further research is needed to optimize the efficacy of such tools in surgical care.
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.