Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36843805›Full record

ArticleCureus2023

A Novel Use of an Electronic Differential Diagnosis Generator in the Emergency Department Setting.

Erica L Burkett, Brett R Todd

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Erica L BurkettDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, USA.
Brett R ToddDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction The ability of electronic differential diagnosis (DDx) tools to generate accurate diagnoses has been well established in simulation and primary care clinical environments. However, the use of such tools has not been well studied in the emergency department (ED). We aimed to characterize the use and perceptions of a DDx tool among emergency medicine (EM) clinicians who were newly provided with access to such a tool. Methods We performed a pilot study investigating the utilization of a DDx tool by clinicians in an ED setting shortly after the tool was introduced. After six months of use, retrospective data were analyzed to characterize the use of the tool among ED clinicians. The clinicians were also surveyed on their perceptions of the use of the tool in the ED setting. Results There were 224 total queries, which were regarding 107 unique patients. The most searched symptoms were related to constitutional, dermatologic, and gastrointestinal complaints whereas symptoms related to toxicology and trauma were less commonly searched. Survey respondents rated the tool favorably, and when not used, reported reasons including forgetting that the tool was available for use, not feeling the need to use the tool, and disruption to workflow. Conclusions Electronic DDx tools may have some utility in assisting ED clinicians in generating a DDx, however, clinician adoption and workflow integration are barriers to their utility.

Indexed as

diagnostic errordifferential diagnosisdocumentation workflowemergency medicine traininghealthcare technology

Identifiers

PMID36843805
PMCPMC9957579

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.