Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28877732›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomedical semantics2017

Ontology-based specification, identification and analysis of perioperative risks.

Alexandr Uciteli, Juliane Neumann, Kais Tahar, Kutaiba Saleh, Stephan Stucke, Sebastian Faulbrück-Röhr, André Kaeding, Martin Specht, Tobias Schmidt, Thomas Neumuth and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomedical semantics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

14 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Alexandr UciteliInstitute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Epidemiology (IMISE), University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany. auciteli@imise.uni-leipzig.de.
Juliane NeumannInnovation Center Computer Assisted Surgery (ICCAS), University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany. juliane.neumann@medizin.uni-leipzig.de.
Kais TaharInstitute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Epidemiology (IMISE), University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Kutaiba SalehJena University Hospital, Jena, Germany. kutaiba.saleh@med.uni-jena.de.
Stephan StuckeGMC Systems mbH, Ilmenau, Germany.
Sebastian Faulbrück-RöhrGMC Systems mbH, Ilmenau, Germany.
André KaedingGMC Systems mbH, Ilmenau, Germany.
Martin SpechtJena University Hospital, Jena, Germany.
Tobias SchmidtJena University Hospital, Jena, Germany.
Thomas NeumuthInnovation Center Computer Assisted Surgery (ICCAS), University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Andreas BestingSurgiTAIX AG, Herzogenrath, Germany.
Dominik StegemannSurgiTAIX AG, Herzogenrath, Germany.
Frank PortheineSurgiTAIX AG, Herzogenrath, Germany.
Heinrich HerreInstitute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Epidemiology (IMISE), University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany. heinrich.herre@imise.uni-leipzig.de.
Leipzig University · DEJena University Hospital · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedical personnel in hospitals often works under great physical and mental strain. In medical decision-making, errors can never be completely ruled out. Several studies have shown that between 50 and 60% of adverse events could have been avoided through better organization, more attention or more effective security procedures. Critical situations especially arise during interdisciplinary collaboration and the use of complex medical technology, for example during surgical interventions and in perioperative settings (the period of time before, during and after surgical intervention).

methodsIn this paper, we present an ontology and an ontology-based software system, which can identify risks across medical processes and supports the avoidance of errors in particular in the perioperative setting. We developed a practicable definition of the risk notion, which is easily understandable by the medical staff and is usable for the software tools. Based on this definition, we developed a Risk Identification Ontology (RIO) and used it for the specification and the identification of perioperative risks.

resultsAn agent system was developed, which gathers risk-relevant data during the whole perioperative treatment process from various sources and provides it for risk identification and analysis in a centralized fashion. The results of such an analysis are provided to the medical personnel in form of context-sensitive hints and alerts. For the identification of the ontologically specified risks, we developed an ontology-based software module, called Ontology-based Risk Detector (OntoRiDe).

conclusionsAbout 20 risks relating to cochlear implantation (CI) have already been implemented. Comprehensive testing has indicated the correctness of the data acquisition, risk identification and analysis components, as well as the web-based visualization of results.

Indexed as

Biological OntologiesPerioperative PeriodHumansRisk AssessmentSoftwareAgent systemOntologyPerioperative risksRisk analysisRisk definitionRisk identificationRisk specification

Identifiers

PMID28877732
PMCPMC5588673
OpenAlexW2752417653

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.