ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2020
Towards the Use of Standardized Terms in Clinical Case Studies for Process Mining in Healthcare.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Process mining in healthcare: a tertiary study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Pooled it
- Enhancing quality and decision-making for care pathways: An application of process mining in cancer care.PloS one · 2026Article
- Computer-Supported Collaborative Design of Standardized Clinical Cases: Algorithm Development and Validation.JMIR medical informatics · 2023Article
- dfgcompare: a library to support process variant analysis through Markov models.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021Article
- On Clinical Utility and Systematic Reporting in Case Studies of Healthcare Process Mining.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Process mining can provide greater insight into medical treatment processes and organizational processes in healthcare. To enhance comparability between processes, the quality of the labelled-data is essential. A literature review of the clinical case studies by Rojas et al. in 2016 identified several common aspects for comparison, which include methodologies, algorithms or techniques, medical fields, and healthcare specialty. However, clinical aspects are not reported in a uniform way and do not follow a standard clinical coding scheme. Further, technical aspects such as details of the event log data are not always described. In this paper, we identified 38 clinically-relevant case studies of process mining in healthcare published from 2016 to 2018 that described the tools, algorithms and techniques utilized, and details on the event log data. We then correlated the clinical aspects of patient encounter environment, clinical specialty and medical diagnoses using the standard clinical coding schemes SNOMED CT and ICD-10. The potential outcomes of adopting a standard approach for describing event log data and classifying medical terminology using standard clinical coding schemes are further discussed. A checklist template for the reporting of case studies is provided in the Appendix A to the article.
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.