Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32723855›Full record

ReviewBMJ health & care informatics2020

OpenClinical.net: Artificial intelligence and knowledge engineering at the point of care.

John Fox, Matthew South, Omar Khan, Catriona Kennedy, Peter Ashby, John Bechtel

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ health & care informatics, 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Engineering Innovative Interfaces for Point-of-Care Diagnostics.Current opinion in colloid & interface science · 2023
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Computable knowledge is the enemy of disease.BMJ health & care informatics · 2020
    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

6 authors.

John FoxOxford University, Oxford, UK john.fox@openclinical.net.
Matthew SouthOxford University, Oxford, UK.
Omar KhanInstitute for Digital Healthcare, Warwick University, Coventry, UK.
Catriona KennedyFreelance researcher, Manchester, UK.
Peter AshbyOpenClinical CIC and Ashby Projects Ltd, Oxford, UK.
John BechtelOpenClinical CIC and Badgerpass Ltd, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveOpenClinical.net is a way of disseminating clinical guidelines to improve quality of care whose distinctive feature is to combine the benefits of clinical guidelines and other human-readable material with the power of artificial intelligence to give patient-specific recommendations. A key objective is to empower healthcare professionals to author, share, critique, trial and revise these 'executable' models of best practice.

designOpenClinical.net

resultsPRO

conclusionOpenClinical.net is a showcase for a PRO

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceDecision Support Systems, ClinicalKnowledge BasesPoint-of-Care SystemsPractice Guidelines as TopicHumansBMJ Health Informaticscomputer methodologies

Identifiers

PMID32723855
PMCPMC7388886

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.