ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2020
Evaluation of lexical clarification by patients reading their clinical notes: a quasi-experimental interview 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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence: revolutionizing cardiology with large language models.European heart journal · 2024Article
- The State-of-the-Art of Patient Portals: Adapting to External Factors, Addressing Barriers, and Innovating.Applied clinical informatics · 2023Review
- Evaluation of Patient-Friendly Diagnosis Clarifications in a Hospital Patient Portal.Applied clinical informatics · 2023Article
- Quality assurance and enrichment of biological and biomedical ontologies and terminologies.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients benefit from access to their medical records. However, clinical notes and letters are often difficult to comprehend for most lay people. Therefore, functionality was implemented in the patient portal of a Dutch university medical centre (UMC) to clarify medical terms in free-text data. The clarifications consisted of synonyms and definitions from a Dutch medical terminology system. We aimed to evaluate to what extent these lexical clarifications match the information needs of the patients. Secondarily, we evaluated how the clarifications and the functionality could be improved.
methodsWe invited participants from the patient panel of the UMC to read their own clinical notes. They marked terms they found difficult and rated the ease of these terms. After the functionality was activated, participants rated the clarifications provided by the functionality, and the functionality itself regarding ease and usefulness. Ratings were on a scale from 0 (very difficult) to 100 (very easy). We calculated the median number of terms not understood per participant, the number of terms with a clarification, the overlap between these numbers (coverage), and the precision and recall.
resultsWe included 15 participants from the patient panel. They marked a median of 21 (IQR 19.5-31) terms as difficult in their text files, while only a median of 2 (IQR 1-4) of these terms were clarified by the functionality. The median precision was 6.5% (IQR 2.3-14.25%) and the median recall 8.3% (IQR 4.7-13.5%) per participant. However, participants rated the functionality with median ease of 98 (IQR 93.5-99) and a median usefulness of 79 (IQR 52.5-97). Participants found that many easy terms were unnecessarily clarified, that some clarifications were difficult, and that some clarifications contained mistakes.
conclusionsPatients found the functionality easy to use and useful. However, in its current form it only helped patients to understand few terms they did not understand, patients found some clarifications to be difficult, and some to be incorrect. This shows that lexical clarification is feasible even when limited terms are available, but needs further development to fully use its potential.
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.