Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37884906›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2023

Expectation of clinical decision support systems: a survey study among nephrologist end-users.

Fruzsina Kotsis, Helena Bächle, Michael Altenbuchinger, Jürgen Dönitz, Yacoub Abelard Njipouombe Nsangou, Heike Meiselbach, Robin Kosch, Sabine Salloch, Tanja Bratan, Helena U Zacharias and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. When impact trials are not feasible: alternatives to study the impact of prediction models on clinical practice.Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation : official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association - European Renal Association · 2024
    Article
  7. 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

11 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Fruzsina Kotsis *Institute of Genetic Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Helena Bächle *Institute of Genetic Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Michael AltenbuchingerDepartment of Medical Bioinformatics, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Jürgen DönitzDepartment of Medical Bioinformatics, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Yacoub Abelard Njipouombe NsangouInstitute of Computational Biology, Helmholtz Zentrum München, Munich, Germany.
Heike MeiselbachDepartment of Nephrology and Hypertension, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Robin KoschDepartment of Medical Bioinformatics, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Sabine SallochInstitute for Ethics, History and Philosophy of Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Hanover, Germany.
Tanja BratanCompetence Center Emerging Technologies, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI, Karlsruhe, Germany.
Helena U ZachariasPeter L. Reichertz Institute for Medical Informatics of TU Braunschweig and Hannover Medical School, Hanover, Germany.
Ulla T SchultheissInstitute of Genetic Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. ulla.schultheiss@uniklinik-freiburg.de.
Universitätsmedizin Göttingen · DEUniversity of Freiburg · DEFraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research · DEHelmholtz Zentrum München · DEMedizinische Hochschule Hannover · DETechnische Universität Braunschweig · DEUniversitätsklinikum Erlangen · DEUniversity Medical Center Freiburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChronic kidney disease (CKD), a major public health problem with differing disease etiologies, leads to complications, comorbidities, polypharmacy, and mortality. Monitoring disease progression and personalized treatment efforts are crucial for long-term patient outcomes. Physicians need to integrate different data levels, e.g., clinical parameters, biomarkers, and drug information, with medical knowledge. Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) can tackle these issues and improve patient management. Knowledge about the awareness and implementation of CDSS in Germany within the field of nephrology is scarce. PURPOSE: Nephrologists' attitude towards any CDSS and potential CDSS features of interest, like adverse event prediction algorithms, is important for a successful implementation. This survey investigates nephrologists' experiences with and expectations towards a useful CDSS for daily medical routine in the outpatient setting.

methodsThe 38-item questionnaire survey was conducted either by telephone or as a do-it-yourself online interview amongst nephrologists across all of Germany. Answers were collected and analysed using the Electronic Data Capture System REDCap, as well as Stata SE 15.1, and Excel. The survey consisted of four modules: experiences with CDSS (M1), expectations towards a helpful CDSS (M2), evaluation of adverse event prediction algorithms (M3), and ethical aspects of CDSS (M4). Descriptive statistical analyses of all questions were conducted.

resultsThe study population comprised 54 physicians, with a response rate of about 80-100% per question. Most participants were aged between 51-60 years (45.1%), 64% were male, and most participants had been working in nephrology out-patient clinics for a median of 10.5 years. Overall, CDSS use was poor (81.2%), often due to lack of knowledge about existing CDSS. Most participants (79%) believed CDSS to be helpful in the management of CKD patients with a high willingness to try out a CDSS. Of all adverse event prediction algorithms, prediction of CKD progression (97.8%) and in-silico simulations of disease progression when changing, e. g., lifestyle or medication (97.7%) were rated most important. The spectrum of answers on ethical aspects of CDSS was diverse.

conclusionThis survey provides insights into experience with and expectations of out-patient nephrologists on CDSS. Despite the current lack of knowledge on CDSS, the willingness to integrate CDSS into daily patient care, and the need for adverse event prediction algorithms was high.

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalRenal Insufficiency, ChronicDisease ProgressionFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMotivationNephrologistsSurveys and QuestionnairesCDSSClinical Decision Support SystemsNephrologySurvey

Identifiers

PMID37884906
PMCPMC10605935
OpenAlexW4387966232

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.