Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35087897›Full record

ReviewVisceral medicine2021

Electronic Medical Records for (Visceral) Medicine: An Overview of the Current Status and Prospects.

Sven Kernebeck, Theresa Sophie Busse, Chantal Jux, Ulrich Bork, Jan P Ehlers

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Visceral medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors.

Sven KernebeckChair of Didactics and Educational Research in Health Science, Faculty of Health, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany.
Theresa Sophie BusseChair of Didactics and Educational Research in Health Science, Faculty of Health, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany.
Chantal JuxChair of Didactics and Educational Research in Health Science, Faculty of Health, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany.
Ulrich BorkDepartment of Gastrointestinal-, Thoracic- and Vascular Surgery, Dresden Technical University, University Hospital Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Jan P EhlersChair of Didactics and Educational Research in Health Science, Faculty of Health, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundElectronic medical records (EMRs) offer key advantages over analog documentation in healthcare. In addition to providing details about current and past treatments, EMRs enable clear and traceable documentation regardless of the location. This supports evidence-based, multi-professional treatment and leads to more efficient healthcare. However, there are still several challenges regarding the use of EMRs. Understanding these challenges is essential to improve healthcare. The aim of this article is to provide an overview of the current state of EMRs in the field of visceral medicine, to describe the future prospects in this field, and to highlight some of the challenges that need to be faced. SUMMARY: The benefits of EMRs are manifold and particularly pronounced in the area of quality assurance and improvement of communication not only between different healthcare professionals but also between physicians and patients. Besides the danger of medical errors, the health consequences for the users (cognitive load) arise from poor usability or a system that does not fit into the real world. Involving users in the development of EMRs in the sense of participatory design can be helpful here. The use of EMRs in practice together with patients should be accompanied by training to ensure optimal outcomes in terms of shared decision-making. KEY MESSAGE: EMRs offer a variety of benefits. However, it is critical to consider user involvement, setting specificity, and user training during development, implementation, and use in order to minimize unintended consequences.

Indexed as

Electronic health recordsImplementation scienceInformation technologyMedical recordsUser-centered design

Identifiers

PMID35087897
PMCPMC8739853

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.