ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2019
Creating synthetic patient data to support the design and evaluation of novel health information technology.
Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Designing a Substance Misuse Data Dashboard for Overdose Fatality Review Teams: User-Centered Design Approach.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- Feasibility and Assessment of a Machine Learning-Based Predictive Model of Outcome After Lumbar Decompression Surgery.Global spine journal · 2022Article
- Association of Health Record Visualizations With Physicians' Cognitive Load When Prioritizing Hospitalized Patients.JAMA network open · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To ensure that new health information technology supports its intended users, researchers and developers need to follow human-centered methods during all stages of the software development lifecycle, including early stage evaluations. These evaluations need to include realistic testing scenarios to ensure that they provide valuable and accurate feedback to system developers. However, obtaining realistic patient data to support these evaluations has many challenges, including the risk of re-identifying anonymized patients as well as the costs associated with connecting test systems with production ready clinical databases. Here we present a novel five-step process to create highly structured and realistic synthetic patient data to support the evaluation and comparison of early to middle stage health information technology prototypes. We applied this method to evaluate and compare three novel health information technology prototypes designed to support clinicians during the identification of high-priority patients when answering the question: "What patient should I see first?" Our novel approach fills an important gap in the evaluation of health information technology and assists designers in creating high-quality software that best supports its end users.
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.