Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32308856›Full record

ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2019

Foundations for Studying Clinical Workflow: Development of a Composite Inter-Observer Reliability Assessment for Workflow Time Studies.

Marcelo Lopetegui, Po-Yin Yen, Peter Embi, Philip Payne

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Marcelo LopeteguiInstituto de Ciencias e Innovación en Medicina, Facultad de Medicina Clínica Alemana, Universidad del Desarrollo, Chile.
Po-Yin YenInstitute for Informatics, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO.
Peter EmbiRegenstrief Institute, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Philip PayneInstitute for Informatics, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO.
Washington University in St. Louis · USClínica Alemana · CLIndiana University School of Medicine

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ability to understand and measure the complexity of clinical workflow provides hospital managers and researchers with the necessary knowledge to assess some of the most critical issues in healthcare. Given the protagonist role of workflow time studies on influencing decision makers, major efforts are being conducted to address existing methodological inconsistencies of the technique. Among major concerns, the lack of a standardized methodology to ensure the reliability of human observers stands as a priority. In this paper, we highlight the limitations of the current Inter-Observer Reliability Assessments, and propose a novel composite score to systematically conduct them. The composite score is composed of a) the overall agreement based on Kappa that evaluates the naming agreement on virtually created one-seconds tasks, providing a global assessment of the agreement over time, b) a naming agreement based on Kappa, requiring an observation pairing approach based on time-overlap, c) a duration agreement based on the concordance correlation coefficient, that provides means to evaluate the correlation concerning tasks duration, d) a timing agreement, based on descriptive statistics of the gaps between timestamps of same-task classes, and e) a sequence agreement based on the Needleman-Wunsch sequence alignment algorithm. We hereby provide a first step towards standardized reliability reporting in workflow time studies. This new composite IORA protocol is intended to empower workflow researchers with a standardized and comprehensive method for validating observers' reliability and, in turn, the validity of their data and results.

Indexed as

Observer VariationTime and Motion StudiesWorkflowHumansReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID32308856
PMCPMC7153081
OpenAlexW3026537165

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.