Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33694144›Full record

ArticleApplied clinical informatics2021

Algorithmic Detection of Boolean Logic Errors in Clinical Decision Support Statements.

Adam Wright, Skye Aaron, Allison B McCoy, Robert El-Kareh, Daniel Fort, Steven Z Kassakian, Christopher A Longhurst, Sameer Malhotra, Dustin S McEvoy, Craig B Monsen and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Development and application of desiderata for automated clinical ordering.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025
    Article
  2. A scoping review of rule-based clinical decision support malfunctions.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024
    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

14 authors.

Adam WrightDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, United States.
Skye AaronDivision of General Internal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States.
Allison B McCoyDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, United States.
Robert El-KarehDepartment of Medicine, UC San Diego Health, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, California, United States.
Daniel FortCenter for Outcomes and Health Services Research, Ochsner Health System, New Orleans, Louisiana, United States.
Steven Z KassakianDepartment of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States.
Christopher A LonghurstDepartment of Medicine, UC San Diego Health, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, California, United States.
Sameer MalhotraDepartment of Healthcare Policy and Research, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York, United States.
Dustin S McEvoyPartners eCare, Partners HealthCare System, Boston, Massachusetts, United States.
Craig B MonsenCenter for Informatics, Atrius Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States.
Richard SchreiberPhysician Informatics and Department of Internal Medicine, Geisinger Holy Spirit, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, United States.
Asli O WeitkampDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, United States.
DuWayne L WillettDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, United States.
Dean F SittigSchool of Biomedical Informatics, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas, United States.

Funding

Improving clinical decision support reliability using anomaly detection methodsR01LM011966 · NLM · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI WRIGHT, ADAM T · 2014 to 2017
$2.4M
NLM NIH HHS R01 LM011966
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveClinical decision support (CDS) can contribute to quality and safety. Prior work has shown that errors in CDS systems are common and can lead to unintended consequences. Many CDS systems use Boolean logic, which can be difficult for CDS analysts to specify accurately. We set out to determine the prevalence of certain types of Boolean logic errors in CDS statements.

methodsNine health care organizations extracted Boolean logic statements from their Epic electronic health record (EHR). We developed an open-source software tool, which implemented the Espresso logic minimization algorithm, to identify three classes of logic errors.

resultsParticipating organizations submitted 260,698 logic statements, of which 44,890 were minimized by Espresso. We found errors in 209 of them. Every participating organization had at least two errors, and all organizations reported that they would act on the feedback. DISCUSSION: An automated algorithm can readily detect specific categories of Boolean CDS logic errors. These errors represent a minority of CDS errors, but very likely require correction to avoid patient safety issues. This process found only a few errors at each site, but the problem appears to be widespread, affecting all participating organizations.

conclusionBoth CDS implementers and EHR vendors should consider implementing similar algorithms as part of the CDS authoring process to reduce the number of errors in their CDS interventions.

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalLogicElectronic Health RecordsHumansSoftware

Identifiers

PMID33694144
PMCPMC7946596

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.