ArticleEGEMS (Washington, DC)2017
Experience with Integrating Diagnostic Decision Support Software with Electronic Health Records: Benefits versus Risks of Information Sharing.
Article in EGEMS (Washington, DC), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The implementation challenge of computerised clinical decision support systems for the detection of disease in primary care: systematic review and recommendations.Implementation science : IS · 2025Pooled it
- Role of Artificial Intelligence Applications in Real-Life Clinical Practice: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Pooled it
- Efficacy of automated machine learning models and feature engineering for diagnosis of equivocal appendicitis using clinical and computed tomography findings.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- "What brought you in today?": Modeling patient-provider clinic visits to characterize rural providers' antibiotic treatment decisions.Research in social & administrative pharmacy : RSAP · 2023Article
- The implementation of NILS: A web-based artificial neural network decision support tool for noninvasive lymph node staging in breast cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Acceptance, Barriers, and Facilitators to Implementing Artificial Intelligence-Based Decision Support Systems in Emergency Departments: Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation.JMIR formative research · 2022Article
- User testing of a diagnostic decision support system with machine-assisted chart review to facilitate clinical genomic diagnosis.BMJ health & care informatics · 2021Article
- Drug Alert Experience and Salience during Medical Residency at Two Healthcare Institutions.Applied clinical informatics · 2021Article
- An overview of clinical decision support systems: benefits, risks, and strategies for success.NPJ digital medicine · 2020Review
- Expansion of the Human Phenotype Ontology (HPO) knowledge base and resources.Nucleic acids research · 2019Article
- Development of a computer-aided design software for the quantitative evaluation of aesthetic damage.PloS one · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionReducing misdiagnosis has long been a goal of medical informatics. Current thinking has focused on achieving this goal by integrating diagnostic decision support into electronic health records.
methodsA diagnostic decision support system already in clinical use was integrated into electronic health record systems at two large health systems, after clinician input on desired capabilities. The decision support provided three outputs: editable text for use in a clinical note, a summary including the suggested differential diagnosis with a graphical representation of probability, and a list of pertinent positive and pertinent negative findings (with onsets).
resultsStructured interviews showed widespread agreement that the tool was useful and that the integration improved workflow. There was disagreement among various specialties over the risks versus benefits of documenting intermediate diagnostic thinking. Benefits were most valued by specialists involved in diagnostic testing, who were able to use the additional clinical context for richer interpretation of test results. Risks were most cited by physicians making clinical diagnoses, who expressed concern that a process that generated diagnostic possibilities exposed them to legal liability. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionReconciling the preferences of the various groups could include saving only the finding list as a patient-wide resource, saving intermediate diagnostic thinking only temporarily, or adoption of professional guidelines to clarify the role of decision support in diagnosis.
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.