Observational studyJournal of medical systems2017
Auditing The Completeness and Legibility of Computerized Radiological Request Forms.
Observational study in Journal of medical systems, 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Analyzation of Change in Documentation due to the Introduction of Electronic Patient Records in Hospitals-A Systematic Review.Journal of medical systems · 2022Pooled it
- Assessing, Advising, and Advancing the Filling Practices of the Radiology Request Form in Africa: A Systematic Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- The Implementation of an Electronic Medical Record in a German Hospital and the Change in Completeness of Documentation: Longitudinal Document Analysis.JMIR medical informatics · 2024Article
- Comparison of Hospital Readmission and Mortality between COVID-19 and Pneumonia Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Health informatics publication trends in Saudi Arabia: a bibliometric analysis over the last twenty-four years.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Certain Saudi healthcare organizations transfer outpatients to medical imaging departments for radiological examinations in a manual process that relies on the use of paper-based forms. With the increased implementation of electronic medical records in Saudi Hospitals, little is known about the completeness and legibility of information captured in electronic-based medical imaging forms. The purpose of this study is to audit the completeness and legibility of medical imaging paper-based forms in comparison with electronic-based medical imaging forms. As a secondary objective, we also examined the number of errors found on the forms.An observational retrospective cross-sectional study was utilized to audit the completeness and legibility of both paper and electronic forms collected between March 1 and May 15, 2015. The study measured the association among categorical variables using Chi-Square analysis. The results of this investigation show a significant association between form completion and type of record (i.e., paper vs. electronic) where electronic-based systems were found to be more complete than paper-based records. Electrnoic based records were also found to improve form legibility, promote user adherence to complete the forms and minimize entry errors. In conclusion, electronic-based medical imaging forms are more complete and legible than paper based forms. Future studies should evaluate other hospitals and compare both legibility and completeness of electronic-based medical imaging forms and conduct usability evaluation studies with users to explore the impacts of system design on both completeness and legibility of electronic forms, in general, but more specifically, electronic-based medical imaging forms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29101478What 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.