Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32052388›Full record

ArticleApplied clinical informatics2020

To Share is Human! Advancing Evidence into Practice through a National Repository of Interoperable Clinical Decision Support.

Edwin A Lomotan, Ginny Meadows, Maria Michaels, Jeremy J Michel, Kristen Miller

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
8.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  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

5 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Edwin A LomotanDivision of Digital Healthcare Research, Center for Evidence and Practice Improvement, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Maryland, United States.
Ginny MeadowsClinical Quality and Informatics, Health Transformation Technical Center, The MITRE Corporation, Atlanta, Georgia, United States.
Maria MichaelsCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States.
Jeremy J MichelDepartment of Pediatrics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States.
Kristen MillerNational Center for Human Factors in Healthcare, MedStar Health, Washington, District of Columbia, United States.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality · USCenters for Disease Control and Prevention · USECRI Institute · USGeorgetown University · USMitre (United States) · US

Funding

HHSA290201600001U AHRQHHSP233201500022I/AHRQ216963 AHRQ
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealthcare systems devote substantial resources to the development of clinical decision support (CDS) largely independently. The process of translating evidence-based practice into useful and effective CDS may be more efficient and less duplicative if healthcare systems shared knowledge about the translation, including workflow considerations, key assumptions made during the translation process, and technical details.

objectiveDescribe how a national repository of CDS can serve as a public resource for healthcare systems, academic researchers, and informaticists seeking to share and reuse CDS knowledge resources or "artifacts."

methodsIn 2016, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) launched CDS Connect as a public, web-based platform for authoring and sharing CDS knowledge artifacts. Researchers evaluated early use and impact of the platform by collecting user experiences of AHRQ-sponsored and community-led dissemination efforts and through quantitative/qualitative analysis of site metrics. Efforts are ongoing to quantify efficiencies gained by healthcare systems that leverage shared, interoperable CDS artifacts rather than developing similar CDS de novo and in isolation.

resultsFederal agencies, academic institutions, and others have contributed over 50 entries to CDS Connect for sharing and dissemination. Analysis indicates shareable CDS resources reduce team sizes and the number of tasks and time required to design, develop, and deploy CDS. However, the platform needs further optimization to address sociotechnical challenges. Benefits of sharing include inspiring others to undertake similar CDS projects, identifying external collaborators, and improving CDS artifacts as a result of feedback. Organizations are adapting content available through the platform for continued research, innovation, and local implementations.

conclusionCDS Connect has provided a functional platform where CDS developers are actively sharing their work. CDS sharing may lead to improved implementation efficiency through numerous pathways, and further research is ongoing to quantify efficiencies gained.

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalHealth Information InteroperabilityGuidelines as TopicHumansSoftwareTranslational Research, Biomedical

Identifiers

PMID32052388
PMCPMC7015815
OpenAlexW3005883206

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.