Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27736972›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

ODMSummary: A Tool for Automatic Structured Comparison of Multiple Medical Forms Based on Semantic Annotation with the Unified Medical Language System.

Michael Storck, Rainer Krumm, Martin Dugas

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

3 authors.

Michael StorckInstitute of Medical Informatics, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8160-0184
Rainer KrummInstitute of Medical Informatics, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
Martin DugasInstitute of Medical Informatics, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMedical documentation is applied in various settings including patient care and clinical research. Since procedures of medical documentation are heterogeneous and developed further, secondary use of medical data is complicated. Development of medical forms, merging of data from different sources and meta-analyses of different data sets are currently a predominantly manual process and therefore difficult and cumbersome. Available applications to automate these processes are limited. In particular, tools to compare multiple documentation forms are missing. The objective of this work is to design, implement and evaluate the new system ODMSummary for comparison of multiple forms with a high number of semantically annotated data elements and a high level of usability.

methodsSystem requirements are the capability to summarize and compare a set of forms, enable to estimate the documentation effort, track changes in different versions of forms and find comparable items in different forms. Forms are provided in Operational Data Model format with semantic annotations from the Unified Medical Language System. 12 medical experts were invited to participate in a 3-phase evaluation of the tool regarding usability.

resultsODMSummary (available at https://odmtoolbox.uni-muenster.de/summary/summary.html) provides a structured overview of multiple forms and their documentation fields. This comparison enables medical experts to assess multiple forms or whole datasets for secondary use. System usability was optimized based on expert feedback. DISCUSSION: The evaluation demonstrates that feedback from domain experts is needed to identify usability issues. In conclusion, this work shows that automatic comparison of multiple forms is feasible and the results are usable for medical experts.

Indexed as

Clinical CodingHumansMedical RecordsMedical Records Systems, ComputerizedSemanticsUnified Medical Language SystemWeb Browser

Identifiers

PMID27736972
PMCPMC5063379

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.