Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28197619›Full record

ArticleApplied clinical informatics2017

Evaluating a Modular Decision Support Application For Colorectal Cancer Screening.

Laura G Militello, Julie B Diiulio, Morgan R Borders, Christen E Sushereba, Jason J Saleem, Donald Haverkamp, Thomas F Imperiale

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Nutri: A Behavioral Science-Based Clinical Decision Support for Chronic Disease Management.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

7 authors.

Laura G MilitelloLaura G. Militello, MA, Applied Decision Science, 5335 Far Hills Avenue, Suite 217, Dayton, Ohio 45429, Email: l.militello@applieddecisionscience.com, (937) 602-7844.
Julie B Diiulio
Morgan R Borders
Christen E Sushereba
Jason J Saleem
Donald Haverkamp
Thomas F Imperiale

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is a need for health information technology evaluation that goes beyond randomized controlled trials to include consideration of usability, cognition, feedback from representative users, and impact on efficiency, data quality, and clinical workflow. This article presents an evaluation illustrating one approach to this need using the Decision-Centered Design framework.

objectiveTo evaluate, through a Decision-Centered Design framework, the ability of the Screening and Surveillance App to support primary care clinicians in tracking and managing colorectal cancer testing.

methodsWe leveraged two evaluation formats, online and in-person, to obtain feedback from a range primary care clinicians and obtain comparative data. Both the online and in-person evaluations used mock patient data to simulate challenging patient scenarios. Primary care clinicians responded to a series of colorectal cancer-related questions about each patient and made recommendations for screening. We collected data on performance, perceived workload, and usability. Key elements of Decision-Centered Design include evaluation in the context of realistic, challenging scenarios and measures designed to explore impact on cognitive performance.

resultsComparison of means revealed increases in accuracy, efficiency, and usability and decreases in perceived mental effort and workload when using the Screening and Surveillance App.

conclusionThe results speak to the benefits of using the Decision-Centered Design approach in the analysis, design, and evaluation of Health Information Technology. Furthermore, the Screening and Surveillance App shows promise for filling decision support gaps in current electronic health records.

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalAgedColorectal NeoplasmsElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle Agedcancer screeningcolorectal cancerdecision support techniquesevaluation methodologyHealth information technology

Identifiers

PMID28197619
PMCPMC5373761

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.