Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36033634›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in digital health2022

Hospital cybersecurity risks and gaps: Review (for the non-cyber professional).

Liat Wasserman, Yair Wasserman

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in digital health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Biosafety and biosecurity challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023
    Article
  20. The Role of Cybersecurity Education in Nigeria's Healthcare Sector.Nigerian medical journal : journal of the Nigeria Medical Association
    Review
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

2 authors.

Liat WassermanIndependent Researcher, Philadelphia, PA, United States.
Yair WassermanIndependent Researcher, Boston, MA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Healthcare is facing a growing threat of cyberattacks. Myriad data sources illustrate the same trends that healthcare is one of the industries with the highest risk of cyber infiltration and is seeing a surge in security incidents within just a few years. The circumstances thus begged the question: are US hospitals prepared for the risks that accompany clinical medicine in cyberspace? Objective: The study aimed to identify the major topics and concerns present in today's hospital cybersecurity field, intended for non-cyber professionals working in hospital settings. Methods: Results: The review revealed a basic landscape of hospital cybersecurity, including primary reasons hospitals are frequent targets, top attack methods, and consequences hospitals face following attacks. Cyber technologies common in healthcare and their risks were examined, including medical devices, telemedicine software, and electronic data. By infiltrating any of these components of clinical care, attackers can access mounds of information and manipulate, steal, ransom, or otherwise compromise the records, or can use the access to catapult themselves to deeper parts of a hospital's network. Issues that can increase healthcare cyber risks, like interoperability and constant accessibility, were also identified. Finally, strategies that hospitals tend to employ to combat these risks, including technical, financial, and regulatory, were explored and found to be weak. There exist serious vulnerabilities within hospitals' technologies that many hospitals presently fail to address. The COVID-19 pandemic was used to further illustrate this issue. Conclusions: Comparison of the risks, strategies, and gaps revealed that many US hospitals are unprepared for cyberattacks. Efforts are largely misdirected, with external-often governmental-efforts negligible. Policy changes, e.g., training employees in cyber protocols, adding advanced technical protections, and collaborating with several experts, are necessary. Overall, hospitals must recognize that, in cyber incidents, the real victims are the patients. They are at risk physically and digitally when medical devices or treatments are compromised.

Indexed as

cybersecuritydata breachhealthcarehospital cyberattackmedical technologypatient privacypatient safety

Identifiers

PMID36033634
PMCPMC9403058

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.