Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29177118›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2017

Development of medical informatics in China over the past 30 years from a conference perspective and a Sino-American comparison.

Jun Liang, Kunyan Wei, Qun Meng, Zhenying Chen, Jiajie Zhang, Jianbo Lei

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  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

6 authors.

Jun LiangIT Center, Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, China.
Kunyan WeiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, Sichuan Province, China.
Qun MengCenter for Statistics and Information, National Health and Family Planning Commission of China, Beijing, China.
Zhenying ChenLibrary of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, China.
Jiajie ZhangSchool of Biomedical Informatics, University of Texas Health Sciences Center, Houston, TX, United States of America.
Jianbo LeiCenter for Medical Informatics, Peking University, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs the world's second-largest economy, China has launched health reforms for the second time and invested significant funding in medical informatics (MI) since 2010; however, few studies have been conducted on the outcomes of this ambitious cause.

objectiveThis study analyzed the features of major MI meetings held in China and compared them with similar MI conferences in the United States, aiming at informing researchers on the outcomes of MI in China and the US from the professional conference perspective and encouraging greater international cooperation for the advancement of the field of medical informatics in China and, ultimately, the promotion of China's health reform.

methodsQualitative and quantitative analyses of four MI meetings in China (i.e., CMIAAS, CHINC, CHITEC, and CPMI) and two in the US (i.e., AMIA and HIMSS) were conducted. Furthermore, the size, constituent parts and regional allocation of participants, topics, and fields of research for each meeting were determined and compared.

resultsFrom 1985 to 2016, approximately 45,000 individuals attended the CMIAAS and CPMI (academic), CHINC and CHITEC (industry), resulting in 5,085 documented articles. In contrast, in 2015, 38,000 and 3,700 individuals, respectively, attended the American HIMSS (industry) and AMIA (academic) conferences and published 1,926 papers in the latter. Compared to those of HIMSS in 2015, the meeting duration of Chinese industry CHITEC was 3 vs. 5 days, the number of vendors was 100 vs. 1,500+, the number of sub-forums was 10 vs. 250; while compared to those of AMIA, the meeting duration of Chinese CMIAAS was 2 vs. 8 days, the number of vendors was 5 vs. 65+, the number of sub-forums was 4 vs. 26. HIMSS and AMIA were more open, international, and comprehensive in comparison to the aforementioned Chinese conferences.

conclusionsThe current MI in China can be characterized as "hot in industry application, and cold in academic research." Taking into consideration the economic scale together with the huge investment in MI, conference yield and attendee diversity are still low in China. This study demonstrates an urgent necessity to elevate the medical informatics discipline in China and to expand research fields in order to maintain pace with the development of medical informatics in the US and other countries.

Indexed as

ConferenceHealth information technologyMedical informaticsMeeting proceedingsSino-american comparison

Identifiers

PMID29177118
PMCPMC5701558

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.