ArticleJournal of healthcare informatics research2019
A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Automated Physiological Data Acquisition Systems Using Data-Driven Modeling.
Article in Journal of healthcare informatics research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effects of Real-Time Automated Clinical Deterioration Alert and Trigger Systems on Clinical Outcomes in Adult General Ward Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Critical care medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Future perspectives of heart rate and oxygenation monitoring in the neonatal intensive care unit - a narrative review.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2025Review
- Automated identification of atrial fibrillation from single-lead ECGs using multi-branching ResNet.Frontiers in physiology · 2024Article
- Compact machine learning model for the accurate prediction of first 24-hour survival of mechanically ventilated patients.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Data-Driven Technologies as Enablers for Value Creation in the Prevention of Surgical Site Infections: a Systematic Review.Journal of healthcare informatics research · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Precision medicine and the continuous analysis of "Big data" promises to improve patient outcomes dramatically in the near future. Very recently, healthcare facilities have started to explore automatic collection of patient-specific physiological data with the aim of reducing nursing workload and decreasing manual data entry errors. In addition to those purposes, continuous physiological data can be used for the early detection and prevention of common, and possibly fatal, diseases. For instance, poor patient outcomes from sepsis, a leading cause of mortality in healthcare facilities and a major driver of hospital costs in the USA, can be mitigated when detected early using screening tools that monitor the changing dynamics of physiological data. However, the potential cost of collecting continuous physiological data remains a barrier to the widespread adoption of automated high-frequency data collection systems. In this paper, we perform cost-benefit analysis (CBA) of machine learning applied to various types of acquisition systems (with different collection intervals) to determine if the benefits of such systems will outweigh their implementation costs. Although such systems can be used in the detection of various complications, in order to showcase the immediate benefits, we focus on the early detection of sepsis, one of the major challenges of hospital systems. We present a general approach to conduct such analysis for a wide range of hospitals and highlight its applicability using a case study for a small hospital with 150 beds and 3000 annual patients where the acquisition system would collect data at 1-min intervals. Lastly, we discuss how the analysis may help guide incentives/policies with regard to adopting automated data acquisition systems.
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.