Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33106874›Full record

Trial reportJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2020

OrderRex clinical user testing: a randomized trial of recommender system decision support on simulated cases.

Andre Kumar, Rachael C Aikens, Jason Hom, Lisa Shieh, Jonathan Chiang, David Morales, Divya Saini, Mark Musen, Michael Baiocchi, Russ Altman and 3 more

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report 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 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Clinical Recommender Algorithms to Simulate Digital Specialty Consultations.Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing
    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

13 authors.

Andre KumarDivision of Hospital Medicine, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Rachael C AikensProgram in Biomedical Informatics, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Jason HomDivision of Hospital Medicine, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Lisa ShiehDivision of Hospital Medicine, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Jonathan ChiangDepartment of Medicine, Center for Biomedical Informatics Research, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
David MoralesDepartment of Computer Science, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Divya SainiDepartment of Computer Science, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Mark MusenDepartment of Medicine, Center for Biomedical Informatics Research, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Michael BaiocchiDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Russ AltmanDepartments of Bioengineering, Genetics, Medicine, and Biomedical Data Science, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Mary K GoldsteinGeriatrics Research Education and Clinical Center, Veteran Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, California, USA.
Steven AschPrimary Care and Population Health, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Jonathan H ChenDivision of Hospital Medicine, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.

Funding

Data-Mining Clinical Decision Support from Electronic Health RecordsK01ES026837 · NIEHS · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI CHEN, JONATHAN H. · 2015 to 2019
$893k
NIEHS NIH HHS K01 ES026837
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess usability and usefulness of a machine learning-based order recommender system applied to simulated clinical cases. MATERIALS AND

methods43 physicians entered orders for 5 simulated clinical cases using a clinical order entry interface with or without access to a previously developed automated order recommender system. Cases were randomly allocated to the recommender system in a 3:2 ratio. A panel of clinicians scored whether the orders placed were clinically appropriate. Our primary outcome included the difference in clinical appropriateness scores. Secondary outcomes included total number of orders, case time, and survey responses.

resultsClinical appropriateness scores per order were comparable for cases randomized to the order recommender system (mean difference -0.11 order per score, 95% CI: [-0.41, 0.20]). Physicians using the recommender placed more orders (median 16 vs 15 orders, incidence rate ratio 1.09, 95%CI: [1.01-1.17]). Case times were comparable with the recommender system. Order suggestions generated from the recommender system were more likely to match physician needs than standard manual search options. Physicians used recommender suggestions in 98% of available cases. Approximately 95% of participants agreed the system would be useful for their workflows. DISCUSSION: User testing with a simulated electronic medical record interface can assess the value of machine learning and clinical decision support tools for clinician usability and acceptance before live deployments.

conclusionsClinicians can use and accept machine learned clinical order recommendations integrated into an electronic order entry interface in a simulated setting. The clinical appropriateness of orders entered was comparable even when supported by automated recommendations.

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalElectronic Health RecordsMedical Order Entry SystemsUser-Computer InterfaceHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalMachine Learningclinical careclinical decision supportclinical provider order entrycollaborative filteringelectronic medical recordshuman computer interactioninformaticsorder setsrecommender systemsusability testing

Identifiers

PMID33106874
PMCPMC7727352

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.