ArticleApplied clinical informatics2021
Use, Impact, Weaknesses, and Advanced Features of Search Functions for Clinical Use in Electronic Health Records: A Scoping Review.
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 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Electronic health records: managerial insights from an umbrella review.BMC health services research · 2026Pooled it
- Predicting Electronic Health Record Usability: Scoping Review of Adoption Models, Metrics, and Future Directions.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Impact on Clinical Task Efficiency of a Natural Language Processing Algorithm for Searching Medical Documents: Prospective Crossover Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2022Article
- Design, Implementation, and Usability of the Electronic Medical Record Search Engine (EMERSE) Tool.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveAlthough vast amounts of patient information are captured in electronic health records (EHRs), effective clinical use of this information is challenging due to inadequate and inefficient access to it at the point of care. The purpose of this study was to conduct a scoping review of the literature on the use of EHR search functions within a single patient's record in clinical settings to characterize the current state of research on the topic and identify areas for future study.
methodsWe conducted a literature search of four databases to identify articles on within-EHR search functions or the use of EHR search function in the context of clinical tasks. After reviewing titles and abstracts and performing a full-text review of selected articles, we included 17 articles in the analysis. We qualitatively identified themes in those articles and synthesized the literature for each theme.
resultsBased on the 17 articles analyzed, we delineated four themes: (1) how clinicians use search functions, (2) impact of search functions on clinical workflow, (3) weaknesses of current search functions, and (4) advanced search features. Our review found that search functions generally facilitate patient information retrieval by clinicians and are positively received by users. However, existing search functions have weaknesses, such as yielding false negatives and false positives, which can decrease trust in the results, and requiring a high cognitive load to perform an inclusive search of a patient's record.
conclusionDespite the widespread adoption of EHRs, only a limited number of articles describe the use of EHR search functions in a clinical setting, despite evidence that they benefit clinician workflow and productivity. Some of the weaknesses of current search functions may be addressed by enhancing EHR search functions with collaborative filtering.
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.