Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33758656›Full record

ReviewHealth systems (Basingstoke, England)2019

Clinical pathway modelling: a literature review.

Emma Aspland, Daniel Gartner, Paul Harper

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Health systems (Basingstoke, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. XTSFormer: Cross-Temporal-Scale Transformer for Irregular-Time Event Prediction in Clinical Applications.Proceedings of the ... AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Visual Modeling Languages in Patient Pathways: Scoping Review.Interactive journal of medical research · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

3 authors.

Emma AsplandSchool of Mathematics, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3835-6278
Daniel GartnerSchool of Mathematics, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4361-8559
Paul HarperSchool of Mathematics, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7894-4907

Funding

Cancer Research UK 27882
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Hospital information systems are increasingly used as part of decision support tools for planning at strategic, tactical and operational decision levels. Clinical pathways are an effective and efficient approach in standardising the progression of treatment, to support patient care and facilitate clinical decision making. This literature review proposes a taxonomy of problems related to clinical pathways and explores the intersection between Information Systems (IS), Operational Research (OR) and industrial engineering. A structured search identified 175 papers included in the taxonomy and analysed in this review. The findings suggest that future work should consider industrial engineering integrated with OR techniques, with an aim to improving the handling of multiple scopes within one model, while encouraging interaction between the disjoint care levels and with a more direct focus on patient outcomes. Achieving this would continue to bridge the gap between OR, IS and industrial engineering, for clinical pathways to aid decision support.

Indexed as

Clinical pathwaysinformation systemsliterature reviewoperational research

Identifiers

PMID33758656
PMCPMC7946019

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.