Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28851681›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2017

Is There Evidence of Cost Benefits of Electronic Medical Records, Standards, or Interoperability in Hospital Information Systems? Overview of Systematic Reviews.

Zilma Silveira Nogueira Reis, Thais Abreu Maia, Milena Soriano Marcolino, Francisco Becerra-Posada, David Novillo-Ortiz, Antonio Luiz Pinho Ribeiro

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Improving healthcare quality by unifying the American electronic medical report system: time for change.The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
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.

Zilma Silveira Nogueira Reis *Informatics Center in Health, Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6374-9295
Thais Abreu Maia *State Health Secretariat of Minas Gerais, Planning Advisory, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6021-7314
Milena Soriano Marcolino *Faculty of Medicine, Internal Medicine Department, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4278-3771
Francisco Becerra-Posada *Pan American Health Organization, Washington, DC, DC, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9074-0608
David Novillo-Ortiz *Pan American Health Organization, Washington, DC, DC, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9756-0984
Antonio Luiz Pinho Ribeiro *Medical School, Telehealth Center, Hospital das Clínicas, Internal Medicine Department, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2740-0042

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundElectronic health (eHealth) interventions may improve the quality of care by providing timely, accessible information about one patient or an entire population. Electronic patient care information forms the nucleus of computerized health information systems. However, interoperability among systems depends on the adoption of information standards. Additionally, investing in technology systems requires cost-effectiveness studies to ensure the sustainability of processes for stakeholders.

objectiveThe objective of this study was to assess cost-effectiveness of the use of electronically available inpatient data systems, health information exchange, or standards to support interoperability among systems.

methodsAn overview of systematic reviews was conducted, assessing the MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, LILACS, and IEEE Library databases to identify relevant studies published through February 2016. The search was supplemented by citations from the selected papers. The primary outcome sought the cost-effectiveness, and the secondary outcome was the impact on quality of care. Independent reviewers selected studies, and disagreement was resolved by consensus. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR).

resultsThe primary search identified 286 papers, and two papers were manually included. A total of 211 were systematic reviews. From the 20 studies that were selected after screening the title and abstract, 14 were deemed ineligible, and six met the inclusion criteria. The interventions did not show a measurable effect on cost-effectiveness. Despite the limited number of studies, the heterogeneity of electronic systems reported, and the types of intervention in hospital routines, it was possible to identify some preliminary benefits in quality of care. Hospital information systems, along with information sharing, had the potential to improve clinical practice by reducing staff errors or incidents, improving automated harm detection, monitoring infections more effectively, and enhancing the continuity of care during physician handoffs.

conclusionsThis review identified some benefits in the quality of care but did not provide evidence that the implementation of eHealth interventions had a measurable impact on cost-effectiveness in hospital settings. However, further evidence is needed to infer the impact of standards adoption or interoperability in cost benefits of health care; this in turn requires further research.

Indexed as

benefits and costscostelectronic medical recordshealth information exchangemedical information exchangestandards

Identifiers

PMID28851681
PMCPMC5596299

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.