Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36463880›Full record

ReviewYearbook of medical informatics2022

Findings from the 2022 Yearbook Section on Health Information Exchange.

Meryl Bloomrosen, Eta S Berner

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Yearbook of medical informatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Inclusive Digital Health.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2022
    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

2 authors.

Meryl BloomrosenPremier, Inc., Washington, DC, USA.
Eta S BernerGraduate Programs in Health Informatics, Department of Health Services Administration, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo summarize the recent literature and research and present a selection of the best papers published in 2021 related to health information exchange (HIE).

methodsA systematic review of the literature was performed by the two section editors with the help of a medical librarian. We searched bibliographic databases for HIE-related papers using both MeSH headings and keywords in titles and abstracts. A shortlist of candidate 15 best papers was first selected by section editors before being peer-reviewed by independent external reviewers.

resultsMajor themes of the set of 15 articles included the issues to be addressed in building and maintaining HIEs, HIE implementation barriers and facilitators, and the outcomes of using HIEs. The outcomes of using HIE encompassed the impact on patient care and the ability of HIEs to provide a repository of data for further research.

conclusionsThe growth of HIE has followed a course very similar to the growth of electronic health records (EHRs). Initial foci of research included technical issues in the deployment, followed by research on barriers to use. Now that EHRs are more widely implemented and used, the newer research involves the use of the electronic data contained in them. Although HIEs are currently at an earlier stage of maturity and development than EHRs and most of the articles in this review focused on implementation barriers, we have seen the beginning of research on the large amount of longitudinal and diverse data that HIEs can make available. As the implementation and use of HIEs continue to increase and become more widely deployed, we can expect that research about HIE and leveraging HIEs and the data they collect, will continue to increase.

Indexed as

Health Information ExchangeElectronic Health RecordsHumansPeer Review

Identifiers

PMID36463880
PMCPMC9719787

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.