ArticleJCO clinical cancer informatics2017
Compatibility of Family History Cancer Guidelines With Meaningful Use Standards.
Article in JCO clinical cancer informatics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Environmental scan of family chart linking for genetic cascade screening in a U.S. integrated health system.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- The use of SNOMED CT, 2013-2020: a literature review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021Review
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
Purpose: To evaluate the potential of implementing established family cancer guidelines as clinical decision support within meaningful use (MU)-compliant health information technology systems. Methods We conducted a systematic analysis of cancer guidelines involving family health history (FHx) published before 2015. By comparing existing cancer guideline statements to current MU FHx standard requirements, we determined whether the cancer guideline statements could be implemented as clinical decision support. For guidelines that could not implemented, we determined the primary reasons for incompatibility. Results: A total of 531 statements from 55 guidelines published by 11 different organizations were reviewed and analyzed. Overall, 18% to 66% of guideline statements could or could not be implemented in MU-compliant health information technology systems, depending on which MU standard was used. Health Level Seven (HL7) models performed better than SNOMED models. Implementability of guideline statements varied by cancer type and guideline organizations. The greatest deficiencies in implementability of statements were largely a result of the fact that MU standards required only first-degree relatives and that FHx terms used in guidelines statements were ambiguous. Conclusion: FHx cancer guidelines and MU-based systems vary widely and are mostly incompatible. We identified sources of incompatibility and made recommendations that could improve the implementability of FHx cancer guidelines. Our findings and recommendations can enhance the use of established FHx cancer risk guidelines in routine clinical workflows.
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.