ArticleMayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes2019
Provider Survey on Automated Clinical Decision Support for Cardiovascular Risk Assessment.
Article in Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinician Perspectives on Clinical Decision Support for Familial Hypercholesterolemia.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate provider opinions regarding a clinical decision support (CDS) system for cardiovascular risk assessment and for the creation of a replacement system.
methodsFrom March to April 2018, an invitation letter with a link to a self-administered web-based survey was sent via e-mail to 279 providers with primary appointment in the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester. The e-mail was sent to providers on March 8, 2018 and the survey closed on April 16, 2018.
resultsOne hundred providers responded to the survey yielding an overall response rate of 35.8%. Of these, 52 (52%) indicated they had used the cardiovascular (CV) risk profile CDS system and were classified as users and prompted to continue the survey. Among users, 42 (80.8%) indicated use of the CDS was either important (25; 48.1%) or very important (17; 32.7%) in their clinical practice; 45 (86.5%) responded that the system was very easy (17; 32.7%) or easy (28; 53.8%) to use. In addition, 48 (96.0%) users indicated that the CV risk profile supported their thought process at the point-of-care; 47 (97.9%) users indicated similar functionalities should be implemented into the new electronic health record system and 41 (85.4%) users reported new functionalities should also be incorporated.
conclusionsFor most users, the CDS system was easy to use and supported clinical thought process at the point-of-care. Users also felt their practice was supported and should continue to be supported by CDS systems providing individualized patient information at the point-of-care.
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.