ArticleApplied clinical informatics2017
A Picture is Worth 1,000 Words. The Use of Clinical Images in Electronic Medical Records.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Experiences of Health Care Providers Using a Mobile Medical Photography Application.Applied clinical informatics · 2020Article
- A smartphone, a slit lamp, and an ophthalmology consult.Clinical case reports · 2019Article
- Use of an EHR-Integrated Point-of-Care Mobile Medical Photography Application in a Pediatric Emergency Department.Applied clinical informatics · 2019Article
- Current Status of using Scale Bar on Clinical Images and Methods to Insert it.Indian journal of dermatologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo understand how clinicians utilize image uploading tools in a home grown electronic health records (EHR) system.
methodsA content analysis of patient notes containing non-radiological images from the EHR was conducted. Images from 4,000 random notes from July 1, 2009 - June 30, 2010 were reviewed and manually coded. Codes were assigned to four properties of the image: (1) image type, (2) role of image uploader (e.g. MD, NP, PA, RN), (3) practice type (e.g. internal medicine, dermatology, ophthalmology), and (4) image subject.
results3,815 images from image-containing notes stored in the EHR were reviewed and manually coded. Of those images, 32.8% were clinical and 66.2% were non-clinical. The most common types of the clinical images were photographs (38.0%), diagrams (19.1%), and scanned documents (14.4%). MDs uploaded 67.9% of clinical images, followed by RNs with 10.2%, and genetic counselors with 6.8%. Dermatology (34.9%), ophthalmology (16.1%), and general surgery (10.8%) uploaded the most clinical images. The content of clinical images referencing body parts varied, with 49.8% of those images focusing on the head and neck region, 15.3% focusing on the thorax, and 13.8% focusing on the lower extremities.
conclusionThe diversity of image types, content, and uploaders within a home grown EHR system reflected the versatility and importance of the image uploading tool. Understanding how users utilize image uploading tools in a clinical setting highlights important considerations for designing better EHR tools and the importance of interoperability between EHR systems and other health technology.
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.