Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29285542›Full record

ArticleJAMA ophthalmology2018

Adoption of Electronic Health Records and Perceptions of Financial and Clinical Outcomes Among Ophthalmologists in the United States.

Michele C Lim, Michael V Boland, Colin A McCannel, Arvind Saini, Michael F Chiang, K David Epley, Flora Lum

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA ophthalmology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
15.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Comments on: Back to the Bedside.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2020
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Michele C LimDepartment of Ophthalmology and Vision Science, University of California, Davis, Sacramento.
Michael V BolandWilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Colin A McCannelStein Eye Institute, University of California Los Angeles.
Arvind SainiCalifornia Cornea Consultants, Escondido.
Michael F ChiangDepartments of Ophthalmology and Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland.
K David EpleyChildren's Eye Care, Kirkland, Washington.
Flora LumAmerican Academy of Ophthalmology, San Francisco, California.
American Academy of Ophthalmology · USJohns Hopkins Medicine · USOregon Health & Science University · USUniversity of California, Davis · USUniversity of California, Los Angeles · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Assessing the rate of electronic health record (EHR) adoption and ophthalmologists' perceptions on financial and clinical productivity is important in understanding how to direct future design and health care policy. Objective: To assess adoption rate and perceptions of financial and clinical outcomes of EHRs among ophthalmologists in the United States. Design, Setting, and Participants: Population-based, cross-sectional study. A random sample of 2000 ophthalmologists was generated on the basis of mailing address zip codes from the 2015 American Academy of Ophthalmology US active membership database, which included more than 18 000 ophthalmologists. A survey was sent by email to assess adoption rate of EHRs, perceptions of financial and clinical productivity, and engagement with Medicare and Medicaid programs that incentivize the use of EHRs. The survey was conducted between 2015 and 2016. Main Outcomes and Measures: Adoption rate of EHRs and perceptions of financial and clinical productivity. Results: The adoption rate of EHRs among surveyed ophthalmologists (348 respondents) was 72.1%. The responding ophthalmologists perceived that their net revenues and productivity have declined and that practice costs are higher with EHR use. Of those who attested for stage 1 of the EHR incentive program, 83% had already or were planning to attest to stage 2, but 9% had no plans. Conclusions and Relevance: The adoption of EHRs by ophthalmologists has more than doubled since a 2011 survey and is similar to that of primary care physicians (79%). In comparison with 2 previous surveys of ophthalmologists, respondents had more negative perceptions of EHR productivity outcomes and effect on practice costs, although financial data were not collected in this survey to support these opinions. These negative perceptions suggest that more attention should be placed on improving the efficiency and usability of EHR systems.

Indexed as

Diffusion of InnovationPopulation SurveillanceCross-Sectional StudiesElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHumansMaleOphthalmologistsSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited States

Identifiers

PMID29285542
PMCPMC5838599
OpenAlexW2776812929

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.