ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2020
Technical requirements framework of hospital information systems: design and evaluation.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 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.
- Safety and usability of oncology information systems - a systematic review.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Pooled it
- Hospital information systems evaluation criteria: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Bridging the gap between models and reality: development of a research environment for an object-oriented hospital information system to integrate artificial intelligence and robotics into clinical practice.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2025Article
- A model for transforming the digital landscape of medical universities.Bioinformation · 2025Article
- Comparison of usability evaluation methods for a health information system: heuristic evaluation versus cognitive walkthrough method.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImplementing the health information system (HIS) is more complex and costly than implementing other information systems. The present study was conducted to design and evaluate technical requirements for the HIS.
methodsThe present study was conducted in 2016 by determining technical requirements for the HIS using the Delphi technique and then evaluating this system using a checklist based on the approved requirements.
resultsThe first part of the study designed a 73-item final list of technical requirements for the HIS in four domains, i.e. communication service, system architecture, security service and system response time. The evaluation results obtained in the second part showed that communication service was met in 63.8% of the HIS programs, system architecture in 65.5%, security service in 72.4% and system response time in 76.3%.
conclusionsA technical evaluation tool was designed and used to select and evaluate the HIS. The evaluation results suggested the study HIS was poorer in terms of communication service and system architecture than in the other two dimensions.
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.