ArticleInternational journal of medical informatics2017
Variation in interoperability across clinical laboratories nationwide.
Article in International journal of medical informatics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital Specimen Tracking- and ISO 15189-Oriented Risk Management in Anatomic Pathology: A Qualitative Study of Expert Perspectives in Western Austria.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Laboratory Data as a Potential Source of Bias in Healthcare Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Models.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2025Review
- Associations between Outpatient Laboratory Test Age and Healthcare Utilization in Type 2 Diabetes Care.Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders · 2023Article
- Design and Evaluation of an Electronic Information Exchange System Connecting Laboratories and Physicians' Offices.Perspectives in health information managemen · 2022Article
- Technology-facilitated care coordination in rural areas: What is needed?International journal of medical informatics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo characterize nationwide variation and factors associated with clinical laboratories': (1) capabilities to send structured test results electronically to ordering practitioners' EHR systems; and (2) their levels of exchange activity, as measured by whether they sent more than three-quarters of their test results as structured data to ordering practitioners' EHR systems. MATERIALS AND
methodsA national survey of all independent and hospital laboratories was conducted in 2013. Using an analytic weighted sample of 9382 clinical laboratories, a series of logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify organizational and area characteristics associated with clinical laboratories' exchange capability and activity.
resultsHospital-based clinical laboratories (71%) and larger clinical laboratories (80%) had significantly higher levels of capability compared to independent (58%) and smaller laboratories (48%), respectively; though all had similar levels of exchange activity, with 30% of clinical laboratories sending 75% or more of their test results electronically. In multivariate analyses, hospital and the largest laboratories had 1.87 and 4.40 higher odds, respectively, of possessing the capability to send results electronically compared to independent laboratories (p<0.001). Laboratories located in areas with a higher share of potential exchange partners had a small but significantly greater capability to send results electronically and higher levels of exchange activity(p<0.05).
conclusionClinical laboratories' capability to exchange varied by size and type; however, all clinical laboratories had relatively low levels of exchange activity. The role of exchange partners potentially played a small but significant role in driving exchange capability and activity.
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.