Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35103230›Full record

ReviewHealth and technology2022

Semantic interoperability in health records standards: a systematic literature review.

Blanda Helena de Mello, Sandro José Rigo, Cristiano André da Costa, Rodrigo da Rosa Righi, Bruna Donida, Marta Rosecler Bez, Luana Carina Schunke

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Health and technology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 65 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
65citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

65 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

5 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors.

Blanda Helena de MelloSoftware Innovation Laboratory, SOFTWARELAB Universidade Do Vale Do Rio Dos Sinos - Unisinos, São Leopoldo, Brazil.
Sandro José RigoSoftware Innovation Laboratory, SOFTWARELAB Universidade Do Vale Do Rio Dos Sinos - Unisinos, São Leopoldo, Brazil.
Cristiano André da CostaSoftware Innovation Laboratory, SOFTWARELAB Universidade Do Vale Do Rio Dos Sinos - Unisinos, São Leopoldo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-3859-6199
Rodrigo da Rosa RighiSoftware Innovation Laboratory, SOFTWARELAB Universidade Do Vale Do Rio Dos Sinos - Unisinos, São Leopoldo, Brazil.
Bruna DonidaSoftware Innovation Laboratory, SOFTWARELAB Universidade Do Vale Do Rio Dos Sinos - Unisinos, São Leopoldo, Brazil.
Marta Rosecler BezSoftware Innovation Laboratory, SOFTWARELAB Universidade Do Vale Do Rio Dos Sinos - Unisinos, São Leopoldo, Brazil.
Luana Carina SchunkeSoftware Innovation Laboratory, SOFTWARELAB Universidade Do Vale Do Rio Dos Sinos - Unisinos, São Leopoldo, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The integration and exchange of information among health organizations and system providers are currently regarded as a challenge. Each organization usually has an internal ecosystem and a proprietary way to store electronic health records of the patient's history. Recent research explores the advantages of an integrated ecosystem by exchanging information between the different inpatient care actors. Many efforts seek quality in health care, economy, and sustainability in process management. Some examples are reducing medical errors, disease control and monitoring, individualized patient care, and avoiding duplicate and fragmented entries in the electronic medical record. Likewise, some studies showed technologies to achieve this goal effectively and efficiently, with the ability to interoperate data, allowing the interpretation and use of health information. To that end, semantic interoperability aims to share data among all the sectors in the organization, clinicians, nurses, lab, the entire hospital. Therefore, avoiding data silos and keep data regardless of vendors, to exchange the information across organizational boundaries. This study presents a comprehensive systematic literature review of semantic interoperability in electronic health records. We searched seven databases of articles published between 2010 to September 2020. We showed the most chosen scenarios, technologies, and tools employed to solve interoperability problems, and we propose a taxonomy around semantic interoperability in health records. Also, we presented the main approaches to solve the exchange problem of legacy and heterogeneous data across healthcare organizations.

Indexed as

EHRHealth recordHealth standardSemantic interoperabilitySystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35103230
PMCPMC8791650

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.