Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30865769›Full record

SynthesisJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2019

Novel displays of patient information in critical care settings: a systematic review.

Rosalie G Waller, Melanie C Wright, Noa Segall, Paige Nesbitt, Thomas Reese, Damian Borbolla, Guilherme Del Fiol

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. The role of information systems in emergency department decision-making-a literature review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Rosalie G WallerDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Melanie C WrightTrinity Health and Saint Alphonsus Regional Medical Center, Boise, ID, USA.
Noa SegallDepartment of Anesthesiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Paige NesbittTrinity Health and Saint Alphonsus Regional Medical Center, Boise, ID, USA.
Thomas ReeseDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Damian BorbollaDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Guilherme Del FiolDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.

Funding

UNIVERSITY OF UTAH MEDICAL INFORMATICS TRAININGT15LM007124 · NLM · UTAH STATE HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM--UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI Karen Louise Eilbeck · 1997 to 2026
$22.0M
Right Place, Right Time: Information Design to Support Decisions in Acute CareR56LM011925 · NLM · SAINT ALPHONSUS REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER · PI WRIGHT, MELANIE C · 2015 to 2016
$544k
Genetics of Common Cancers: Discovery to ImplementationF99CA234943 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI GRIFFIN, ROSALIE · 2018 to 2019
$69k
NCI NIH HHS F99 CA234943NLM NIH HHS R56 LM011925NLM NIH HHS T15 LM007124
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveClinician information overload is prevalent in critical care settings. Improved visualization of patient information may help clinicians cope with information overload, increase efficiency, and improve quality. We compared the effect of information display interventions with usual care on patient care outcomes. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe conducted a systematic review including experimental and quasi-experimental studies of information display interventions conducted in critical care and anesthesiology settings. Citations from January 1990 to June 2018 were searched in PubMed and IEEE Xplore. Reviewers worked independently to screen articles, evaluate quality, and abstract primary outcomes and display features.

resultsOf 6742 studies identified, 22 studies evaluating 17 information displays met the study inclusion criteria. Information display categories included comprehensive integrated displays (3 displays), multipatient dashboards (7 displays), physiologic and laboratory monitoring (5 displays), and expert systems (2 displays). Significant improvement on primary outcomes over usual care was reported in 12 studies for 9 unique displays. Improvement was found mostly with comprehensive integrated displays (4 of 6 studies) and multipatient dashboards (5 of 7 studies). Only 1 of 5 randomized controlled trials had a positive effect in the primary outcome.

conclusionWe found weak evidence suggesting comprehensive integrated displays improve provider efficiency and process outcomes, and multipatient dashboards improve compliance with care protocols and patient outcomes. Randomized controlled trials of physiologic and laboratory monitoring displays did not show improvement in primary outcomes, despite positive results in simulated settings. Important research translation gaps from laboratory to actual critical care settings exist.

Indexed as

Critical CareData DisplayDecision Support Systems, ClinicalElectronic Health RecordsUser-Computer InterfaceAnesthesiologyClinical Laboratory Information SystemsExpert SystemsHumansclinical decision support systemscritical caredata displayelectronic medical recordhealth information systemsinformation displayreviewuser-computer interface

Identifiers

PMID30865769
PMCPMC6657276

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.