Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28637638›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2017

The Gap in Medical Informatics and Continuing Education Between the United States and China: A Comparison of Conferences in 2016.

Jun Liang, Kunyan Wei, Qun Meng, Zhenying Chen, Jiajie Zhang, Jianbo Lei

Abstract readHistorical Article
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2017. 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

6 authors.

Jun LiangSecond Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine,Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0002-0551-6706
Kunyan WeiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0001-9680-8271
Qun MengCenter for Statistics and Information, National Health and Family Planning Commission of China, Beijing, China.ORCID 0000-0003-4810-6579
Zhenying ChenLibrary of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0002-9135-3535
Jiajie ZhangSchool of Biomedical Informatics, University of Texas Health Sciences Center, Houston, TX, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6095-0364
Jianbo LeiCenter for Medical Informatics, Peking University, Beijing, China.ORCID 0000-0002-1744-0235

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChina launched its second health reform in 2010 with considerable investments in medical informatics (MI). However, to the best of our knowledge, research on the outcomes of this ambitious undertaking has been limited.

objectiveOur aim was to understand the development of MI and the state of continuing education in China and the United States from the perspective of conferences.

methodsWe conducted a quantitative and qualitative analysis of four MI conferences in China and two in the United States: China Medical Information Association Annual Symposium (CMIAAS), China Hospital Information Network Annual Conference (CHINC), China Health Information Technology Exchange Annual Conference (CHITEC), China Annual Proceeding of Medical Informatics (CPMI) versus the American Medical Informatics Association (AMIA) and Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS). The scale, composition, and regional distribution of attendees, topics, and research fields for each conference were summarized and compared.

resultsCMIAAS and CPMI are mainstream academic conferences, while CHINC and CHITEC are industry conferences in China. Compared to HIMSS 2016, the meeting duration of CHITEC was 3 versus 5 days, the number of conference sessions was 132 versus 950+, the number of attendees was 5000 versus 40,000+, the number of vendors was 152 versus 1400+, the number of subforums was 12 versus 230, the number of preconference education symposiums and workshops was 0 versus 12, and the duration of preconference educational symposiums and workshops was 0 versus 1 day. Compared to AMIA, the meeting duration of Chinese CMIAAS was 2 versus 5 days, the number of conference sessions was 42 versus 110, the number of attendees was 200 versus 2500+, the number of vendors was 5 versus 75+, and the number of subforums was 4 versus 10. The number of preconference tutorials and working groups was 0 versus 29, and the duration of tutorials and working group was 0 versus 1.5 days.

conclusionsGiven the size of the Chinese economy and the substantial investment in MI, the output in terms of conferences remains low. The impact of conferences on continuing education to professionals is not significant. Chinese researchers and professionals should approach MI with greater rigor, including validated research methods, formal training, and effective continuing education, in order to utilize knowledge gained by other countries and to expand collaboration.

Indexed as

ChinaCongresses as TopicEducation, ContinuingEducation, Medical, ContinuingHistory, 21st CenturyHumansMedical InformaticsUnited Statesconferencescontinuing educationmedical informaticsSino-American comparison

Identifiers

PMID28637638
PMCPMC5498790

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.