ReviewYearbook of medical informatics2023
Health Equity in Clinical Research Informatics.
Review in Yearbook of medical informatics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
- Clinical Research Informatics: Contributions from 2022.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2023Trial
- Impact of Clinical Trial Virtualization on Recruitment in Underserved Communities for a Type 2 Diabetes mHealth Intervention.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Ethical and social considerations of applying artificial intelligence in healthcare-a two-pronged scoping review.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Clinical Research Informatics: a Decade-in-Review.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2024Review
- Harnessing artificial intelligence in sepsis care: advances in early detection, personalized treatment, and real-time monitoring.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThrough a scoping review, we examine in this survey what ways health equity has been promoted in clinical research informatics with patient implications and especially published in the year of 2021 (and some in 2022).
methodA scoping review was conducted guided by using methods described in the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual. The review process consisted of five stages: 1) development of aim and research question, 2) literature search, 3) literature screening and selection, 4) data extraction, and 5) accumulate and report results.
resultsFrom the 478 identified papers in 2021 on the topic of clinical research informatics with focus on health equity as a patient implication, 8 papers met our inclusion criteria. All included papers focused on artificial intelligence (AI) technology. The papers addressed health equity in clinical research informatics either through the exposure of inequity in AI-based solutions or using AI as a tool for promoting health equity in the delivery of healthcare services. While algorithmic bias poses a risk to health equity within AI-based solutions, AI has also uncovered inequity in traditional treatment and demonstrated effective complements and alternatives that promotes health equity.
conclusionsClinical research informatics with implications for patients still face challenges of ethical nature and clinical value. However, used prudently-for the right purpose in the right context-clinical research informatics could bring powerful tools in advancing health equity in patient care.
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.