ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2020
Interviews with experts in rare diseases for the development of clinical decision support system software - a qualitative study.
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 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- The impact of rare diseases on the quality of life in paediatric patients: current status.Frontiers in public health · 2025Review
- Relationship between diagnostic accuracy and self-confidence among medical students when using Google search: A mixed-method study.PloS one · 2025Article
- Evaluating and Enhancing the Fitness-for-Purpose of Electronic Health Record Data: Qualitative Study on Current Practices and Pathway to an Automated Approach Within the Medical Informatics for Research and Care in University Medicine Consortium.JMIR medical informatics · 2024Article
- An intelligent decision support system for acute postoperative endophthalmitis: design, development and evaluation of a smartphone application.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2023Article
- Documentation of hospitalization risk factors in electronic health records (EHRs): a qualitative study with home healthcare clinicians.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022Article
- Financing of Rare Diseases and Orphan Drugs in A Sanctioned Country: A Qualitative Study.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2022Article
- Evaluation of a clinical decision support system for rare diseases: a qualitative study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatients with rare diseases (RDs) are often diagnosed too late or not at all. Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) could support the diagnosis in RDs. The MIRACUM (Medical Informatics in Research and Medicine) consortium, which is one of four funded consortia in the German Medical Informatics Initiative, will develop a CDSS for RDs based on distributed clinical data from ten university hospitals. This qualitative study aims to investigate (1) the relevant organizational conditions for the operation of a CDSS for RDs when diagnose patients (e.g. the diagnosis workflow), (2) which data is necessary for decision support, and (3) the appropriate user group for such a CDSS.
methodsInterviews were carried out with RDs experts. Participants were recruited from staff physicians at the Rare Disease Centers (RDCs) at the MIRACUM locations, which offer diagnosis and treatment of RDs. An interview guide was developed with a category-guided deductive approach. The interviews were recorded on an audio device and then transcribed into written form. We continued data collection until all interviews were completed. Afterwards, data analysis was performed using Mayring's qualitative content analysis approach.
resultsA total of seven experts were included in the study. The results show that medical center guides and physicians from RDC B-centers (with a focus on different RDs) are involved in the diagnostic process. Furthermore, interdisciplinary case discussions between physicians are conducted. The experts explained that RDs exist which cannot be fully differentiated, but rather described only by their overall symptoms or findings: diagnosis is dependent on the disease or disease group. At the end of the diagnostic process, most centers prepare a summary of the patient case. Furthermore, the experts considered both physicians and experts from the B-centers to be potential users of a CDSS. The experts also have different experiences with CDSS for RDs.
conclusionsThis qualitative study is a first step towards establishing the requirements for the development of a CDSS for RDs. Further research is necessary to create solutions by also including the experts on RDs.
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.