ArticleTurkish journal of emergency medicine
An intelligent system for improving adherence to guidelines on acute stroke.
Article in Turkish journal of emergency medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- From guidelines to clinical practice in care for ischaemic stroke patients: A systematic review and expert opinion.European journal of neurology · 2024Pooled it
- Interoperability of heterogeneous health information systems: a systematic literature review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2023Pooled it
- 'A tough nut to crack': inconsistent standards as roadblocks to data interoperability of health information systems in public hospitals in the Gauteng Province of South Africa.Oxford open digital health · 2025Article
- How to Improve the Management of Acute Ischemic Stroke by Modern Technologies, Artificial Intelligence, and New Treatment Methods.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesA timely, accurate assessment and decision-making process is essential for the diagnosis and treatment of the acute stroke, which is the world's third leading cause of death. This process is often performed using the traditional method that increases the complexity, duration, and medical errors. The present study aimed to design and evaluate an intelligent system for improving adherence to the guidelines on the assessment and treatment of acute stroke patients.
methodsDecision-making rules and data elements were used to predict the severity and to treat patients according to the specialists' opinions and guidelines. A system was then developed based on the intelligent decision-making algorithms. The system was finally evaluated by measuring the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, applicability, performance, esthetics, information quality, and completeness and rates of medical errors. The segmented regression model was used to evaluate the effect of systems on the level and the trend of guideline adherence for the assessment and treatment of acute stroke.
resultsFifty-three data elements were identified and used in the data collection and comprehensive decision-making rules. The rules were organized in a decision tree. In our analysis, 150 patients were included. The system accuracy was 98.30%. Evaluation results indicated an error rate of 1.69% by traditional methods. Documentation quality (completeness) increased from 78.66% to 100%. The average score of system quality was 4.60 indicating an acceptable range. After the system intervention, the mean of the adherence to the guideline significantly increased from 65% to 99.5% (
conclusionThe designed system was accurate and can improve adherence to the guideline for the severity assessment and the determination of a therapeutic trend for acute stroke patients. It leads to physicians' empowerment, significantly reduces medical errors, and improves the documentation quality.
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.