ArticleWorld journal of methodology2017
Towards automated calculation of evidence-based clinical scores.
Article in World journal of methodology, 2017. 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.
- An LLM-Powered Clinical Calculator Chatbot Backed by Verifiable Clinical Calculators and their Metadata.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2024Article
- Development and validation of an interpretable clinical score for early identification of acute kidney injury at the emergency department.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Scoring systems for the management of oncological hepato-pancreato-biliary patients.Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery · 2022Review
- Artificial Intelligence: A Shifting Paradigm in Cardio-Cerebrovascular Medicine.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
- Using artificial intelligence for improving stroke diagnosis in emergency departments: a practical framework.Therapeutic advances in neurological disorders · 2020Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo determine clinical scores important for automated calculation in the inpatient setting.
methodsA modified Delphi methodology was used to create consensus of important clinical scores for inpatient practice. A list of 176 externally validated clinical scores were identified from freely available internet-based services frequently used by clinicians. Scores were categorized based on pertinent specialty and a customized survey was created for each clinician specialty group. Clinicians were asked to rank each score based on importance of automated calculation to their clinical practice in three categories - "not important", "nice to have", or "very important". Surveys were solicited
resultsSeventy-nine divided by one hundred and forty-four (54.9%) surveys were completed and 72/144 (50%) surveys were completed by eligible respondents. Only the critical care and internal medicine specialties surpassed the 10-respondent threshold (14 respondents each). For internists, 2/110 (1.8%) of scores were "very important" and 73/110 (66.4%) were "nice to have". For intensivists, no scores were "very important" and 26/76 (34.2%) were "nice to have". Only the number of medical history (OR = 2.34; 95%CI: 1.26-4.67;
conclusionFew clinical scores were deemed "very important" for automated calculation. Future efforts towards score calculator automation should focus on technically feasible "nice to have" scores.
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.