Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36167337›Full record

Observational studyApplied clinical informatics2022

Real-Time Patient Portal Use Among Emergency Department Patients: An Open Results Study.

Robert W Turer, Katherine R Martin, Daniel Mark Courtney, Deborah B Diercks, Ling Chu, DuWayne L Willett, Bhaskar Thakur, Amy Hughes, Christoph U Lehmann, Samuel A McDonald

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Applied clinical informatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

10 authors.

Robert W TurerDepartment of Emergency Medicine, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, United States.
Katherine R MartinDepartment of Emergency Medicine, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, United States.
Daniel Mark CourtneyDepartment of Emergency Medicine, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, United States.
Deborah B DiercksDepartment of Emergency Medicine, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, United States.
Ling ChuClinical Informatics Center, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, United States.
DuWayne L WillettClinical Informatics Center, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, United States.
Bhaskar ThakurDepartment of Emergency Medicine, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, United States.
Amy HughesDepartment of Population and Data Sciences, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, United States.
Christoph U LehmannClinical Informatics Center, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, United States.
Samuel A McDonaldDepartment of Emergency Medicine, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, United States.

Funding

UT Southwestern Center for Translational MedicineUL1TR003163 · NCATS · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI TOTO, ROBERT DANIEL · 2021 to 2025
$39.3M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR003163
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWe characterized real-time patient portal test result viewing among emergency department (ED) patients and described patient characteristics overall and among those not enrolled in the portal at ED arrival.

methodsOur observational study at an academic ED used portal log data to trend the proportion of adult patients who viewed results during their visit from May 04, 2021 to April 04, 2022. Correlation was assessed visually and with Kendall's τ. Covariate analysis using binary logistic regression assessed

resultsThere were 60,314 ED encounters (31,164 unique patients). In 7,377 (12.2%) encounters, patients viewed results while still in the ED. Patients were not enrolled for portal use at arrival in 21,158 (35.2%) encounters, and 927 (4.4% of not enrolled, 1.5% overall) subsequently enrolled and viewed results in the ED. Visual inspection suggests an increasing proportion of patients who viewed results from roughly 5 to 15% over the study (Kendall's τ = 0.61 [

conclusionWe observed increased portal-based test result viewing among ED patients over the year since the 21

Indexed as

Patient PortalsAdultEmergency Service, HospitalHumansLogistic ModelsRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID36167337
PMCPMC9713300

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.