Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35410214›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2022

Evaluation of the clinical application effect of eSource record tools for clinical research.

Bin Wang, Xinbao Hao, Xiaoyan Yan, Junkai Lai, Feifei Jin, Xiwen Liao, Hongju Xie, Chen Yao

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

8 authors.

Bin WangPeking University Clinical Research Institute, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China.ORCID 0000-0003-0012-9835
Xinbao HaoDepartment of Hematology, First Affiliated Hospital of Hainan Medical College, Haikou, China.
Xiaoyan YanPeking University Clinical Research Institute, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China.
Junkai LaiPeking University Clinical Research Institute, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China.
Feifei JinNational Center for Trauma Medicine, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, China.ORCID 0000-0002-4991-0158
Xiwen LiaoPeking University Clinical Research Institute, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China.
Hongju XieDepartment of Plastic and Cosmetic Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Hainan Medical University, Haikou, China.
Chen YaoPeking University Clinical Research Institute, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China. yaochen@hsc.pku.edu.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundElectronic sources (eSources) can improve data quality and reduce clinical trial costs. Our team has developed an innovative eSource record (ESR) system in China. This study aims to evaluate the efficiency, quality, and system performance of the ESR system in data collection and data transcription.

methodsThe study used time efficiency and data transcription accuracy indicators to compare the eSource and non-eSource data collection workflows in a real-world study (RWS). The two processes are traditional data collection and manual transcription (the non-eSource method) and the ESR-based source data collection and electronic transmission (the eSource method). Through the system usability scale (SUS) and other characteristic evaluation scales (system security, system compatibility, record quality), the participants' experience of using ESR was evaluated.

resultsIn terms of the source data collection (the total time required for writing electronic medical records (EMRs)), the ESR system can reduce the time required by 39% on average compared to the EMR system. In terms of data transcription (electronic case report form (eCRF) filling and verification), the ESR can reduce the time required by 80% compared to the non-eSource method (difference: 223 ± 21 s). The ESR accuracy in filling the eCRF field is 96.92%. The SUS score of ESR is 66.9 ± 16.7, which is at the D level and thus very close to the acceptable margin, indicating that optimization work is needed.

conclusionsThis preliminary evaluation shows that in the clinical medical environment, the ESR-based eSource method can improve the efficiency of source data collection and reduce the workload required to complete data transcription.

Indexed as

Data AccuracyElectronic Health RecordsData CollectionHumansResearch DesignWorkflowData collectionData transcriptionElectronic medical recordeSourceInteroperabilityReal-world studySource dataSystem usability scale

Identifiers

PMID35410214
PMCPMC9004184

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.