ArticleAMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science2016
Test Case Selection in Pre-Deployment Testing of Complex Clinical Decision Support Systems.
Article in AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Structural Patterns in Chronic Disease Clinical Practice Guidelines Formalized for Clinical Decision Support.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2022Guideline
- Artificial intelligence-based clinical decision support in modern medical physics: Selection, acceptance, commissioning, and quality assurance.Medical physics · 2020Review
- Selecting Test Cases from the Electronic Health Record for Software Testing of Knowledge-Based Clinical Decision Support Systems.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2018Article
- Automating Guidelines for Clinical Decision Support: Knowledge Engineering and Implementation.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical decision support (CDS) systems with complex logic are being developed. Ensuring the quality of CDS is imperative, but there is no consensus on testing standards. We tested ATHENA-HTN CDS after encoding updated hypertension guidelines into the system. A logic flow and a complexity analysis of the encoding were performed to guide testing. 100 test cases were selected to test the major pathways in the CDS logic flow, and the effectiveness of the testing was analyzed. The encoding contained 26 decision points and 3120 possible output combinations. The 100 cases selected tested all of the major pathways in the logic, but only 1% of the possible output combinations. Test case selection is one of the most challenging aspects in CDS testing and has a major impact on testing coverage. A test selection strategy should take into account the complexity of the system, identification of major logic pathways, and available resources.
Identifiers
27570678PMC5001770What 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.