SynthesisPloS one2024
Exploring trends and autonomy levels of adaptive business intelligence in healthcare: A systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Behavioral responses of healthcare providers to prospective payment systems: a systematic review using the WHO framework (2000-2024).Health economics review · 2026Review
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
objectiveIn order to comprehensively understand the characteristics of Adaptive Business Intelligence (ABI) in Healthcare, this study is structured to provide insights into the common features and evolving patterns within this domain. Applying the Sheridan's Classification as a framework, we aim to assess the degree of autonomy exhibited by various ABI components. Together, these objectives will contribute to a deeper understanding of ABI implementation and its implications within the Healthcare context.
methodsA comprehensive search of academic databases was conducted to identify relevant studies, selecting AIS e-library (AISel), Decision Support Systems Journal (DSSJ), Nature, The Lancet Digital Health (TLDH), PubMed, Expert Systems with Application (ESWA) and npj Digital Medicine as information sources. Studies from 2006 to 2022 were included based on predefined eligibility criteria. PRISMA statements were used to report this study.
resultsThe outcomes showed that ABI systems present distinct levels of development, autonomy and practical deployment. The high levels of autonomy were essentially associated with predictive components. However, the possibility of completely autonomous decisions by these systems is totally excluded. Lower levels of autonomy are also observed, particularly in connection with prescriptive components, granting users responsibility in the generation of decisions.
conclusionThe study presented emphasizes the vital connection between desired outcomes and the inherent autonomy of these solutions, highlighting the critical need for additional research on the consequences of ABI systems and their constituent elements. Organizations should deploy these systems in a way consistent with their objectives and values, while also being mindful of potential adverse effects. Providing valuable insights for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers aiming to comprehend the diverse levels of ABI systems implementation, it contributes to well-informed decision-making in this dynamic field.
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.