ReviewDer Internist2020
[Improved patient safety through a clinical decision support system in laboratory medicine].
Review in Der Internist, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Laboratory Diagnostic of Acute Kidney Injury and Its Progression: Risk of Underdiagnosis in Female and Elderly Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Decision effect of a deep-learning model to assist a head computed tomography order for pediatric traumatic brain injury.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- A Genomic Information Management System for Maintaining Healthy Genomic States and Application of Genomic Big Data in Clinical Research.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- The Clinical Decision Support System AMPEL for Laboratory Diagnostics: Implementation and Technical Evaluation.JMIR medical informatics · 2021Article
- Predictors for blood loss and transfusion frequency to guide blood saving programs in primary knee- and hip-arthroplasty.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaboratory diagnostics are essential for diagnosis, initiation of therapy, and monitoring of patients. Laboratory results that are overlooked or incorrectly interpreted lead to adverse events and endanger patient safety. Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) may facilitate appropriate interpretation of results and subsequent medical response.
objectivesThe research project on digital laboratory medicine (AMPEL) aims at developing a CDSS based on laboratory diagnostics, which supports practitioners in ensuring the necessary medical consequences. MATERIALS AND
methodsA literature review of CDSSs describes the current state of research. The research project AMPEL is presented with its objectives, challenges, and first results. Furthermore, the development of a framework and reporting system is illustrated through the clinical example of severe hypokalemia. RESULTS AND
conclusionThrough interdisciplinary development and constant optimization, a specific CDSS with high acceptance among clinicians was developed. Initial results in the case of severe hypokalemia show a positive effect on patient care. Thereby, more complex frameworks such as sepsis diagnostics or acute coronary syndrome are implemented. The limited availability of standardized and digital clinical data is challenging. In addition to the application of classic decision trees in CDSS, the use of machine learning offers a promising perspective for future developments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32221627What 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.