ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2020
Impact of integrated graphical display on expert and novice diagnostic performance in critical care.
Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Conceptualizing clinical decision support as complex interventions: a meta-analysis of comparative effectiveness trials.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022Pooled it
- "Be Really Careful about That": Clinicians' Perceptions of an Intelligence Augmentation Tool for In-Hospital Deterioration Detection.Applied clinical informatics · 2025Article
- Semantically oriented EHR navigation with a patient specific knowledge base and a clinical context ontology.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2023Article
- Human Factors and Organizational Issues in Health Informatics: Innovations and Opportunities.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the impact of a graphical information display on diagnosing circulatory shock. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis was an experimental study comparing integrated and conventional information displays. Participants were intensivists or critical care fellows (experts) and first-year medical residents (novices).
resultsThe integrated display was associated with higher performance (87% vs 82%; P < .001), less time (2.9 vs 3.5 min; P = .008), and more accurate etiology (67% vs 54%; P = .048) compared to the conventional display. When stratified by experience, novice physicians using the integrated display had higher performance (86% vs 69%; P < .001), less time (2.9 vs 3.7 min; P = .03), and more accurate etiology (65% vs 42%; P = .02); expert physicians using the integrated display had nonsignificantly improved performance (87% vs 82%; P = .09), time (2.9 vs 3.3; P = .28), and etiology (69% vs 67%; P = .81). DISCUSSION: The integrated display appeared to support efficient information processing, which resulted in more rapid and accurate circulatory shock diagnosis. Evidence more strongly supported a difference for novices, suggesting that graphical displays may help reduce expert-novice performance gaps.
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.