ArticleApplied clinical informatics2018
Improving the Accuracy of a Clinical Decision Support System for Cervical Cancer Screening and Surveillance.
Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Process Mapping to Compare and Improve Management of Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Results in Two US Healthcare Systems within the PROSPR Consortium.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2025Article
- Development of a Cervical Cancer Screening Program in Rural Guatemala.Global health, science and practice · 2025Article
- The Effect of an EHR Order Set on Cancer Screening Order Rates in Community-Based Health Centers.Applied clinical informatics · 2025Article
- Uptake of a Cervical Cancer Clinical Decision Support Tool: A Mixed-Methods Study.Applied clinical informatics · 2023Article
- Prevention Strategies and Early Diagnosis of Cervical Cancer: Current State and Prospects.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Artificial intelligence in clinical decision support systems for oncology.International journal of medical sciences · 2023Review
- The Application of Knowledge-Based Clinical Decision Support Systems to Enhance Adherence to Evidence-Based Medicine in Chronic Disease.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2023Review
- A Clinical Decision Support System for Assessing the Risk of Cervical Cancer: Development and Evaluation Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2022Article
- Natural Language Processing to Identify Abnormal Breast, Lung, and Cervical Cancer Screening Test Results from Unstructured Reports to Support Timely Follow-up.Studies in health technology and informatics · 2022Article
- Computable Guidelines and Clinical Decision Support for Cervical Cancer Screening and Management to Improve Outcomes and Health Equity.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClinical decision support systems (CDSS) for cervical cancer prevention are generally limited to identifying patients who are overdue for their next routine/next screening, and they do not provide recommendations for follow-up of abnormal results. We previously developed a CDSS to automatically provide follow-up recommendations based on the American Society of Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) guidelines for women with both previously normal and abnormal test results leveraging information available in the electronic medical record (EMR).
objectiveEnhance the CDSS by improving its accuracy and incorporating changes to reflect the latest revision of the guidelines.
methodsAfter making enhancements to the CDSS, we evaluated the performance of the clinical recommendations on 393 patients selected through stratified sampling from a set of 3,704 patients in a nonclinical setting. We performed chart review of individual patient's record to evaluate the performance of the system. An expert clinician assisted by a resident manually reviewed the recommendation made by the system and verified whether the recommendations were as per the ASCCP guidelines.
resultsThe recommendation accuracy of the enhanced CDSS improved to 93%, which is a substantial improvement over the 84% reported previously. A detailed analysis of errors is presented in this article. We fixed the errors identified in this evaluation that were amenable to correction to further improve the accuracy of the system. The source code of the updated CDSS is available at https://github.com/ohnlp/MayoNlpPapCdss.
conclusionWe made substantial enhancements to our earlier prototype CDSS with the updated ASCCP guidelines and performed a thorough evaluation in a nonclinical setting to improve the accuracy of the CDSS. The CDSS will be further refined as it is utilized in the practice.
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.