ArticleDigital health
The impact of automatic history-taking software on data quality in the cardiology outpatient clinic: Retrospective observational study.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence across the cardiovascular diagnostic pathway: a case-based narrative review.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2026Review
- Safety-First Framework for AI-Enabled Anamnesis in Head and Neck Surgery: Evidence Synthesis from a Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
Background: Healthcare delivery now mandates shorter visits despite the need for more data entry, under-mining patient-provider interaction. Furthermore, enhancing access to the outcomes of prior tests and imaging conducted on the patient, along with accurately documenting medication history, will significantly elevate the quality of healthcare service delivery. Objective: To enhance the efficiency of clinic visits, we have devised a patient-provider portal that systematically gathers symptom and clinical data from patients through a computer algorithm known as Automated Assessment of Cardiovascular Examination (AACE). We intended to assess the quality of computer-generated Electronic Health Records (EHRs) with those documented by physicians. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study employing a paired-sample design, focusing on individuals seeking assessment for active cardiovascular symptoms at outpatient adult cardiovascular clinics. Participants initially completed the AACE, and subsequently, in the first protocol, patients were subjected to routine care without providing the AACE forms to examining physicians. In the second protocol, the AACE form was presented to the physician before the examination, and participants were subjected to routine care. We assessed the impact of AACE forms generated through computerized history-taking method on the examination, considering various clinical outcomes and satisfaction surveys. Results: We included non-randomized eligible patients who visited seven general cardiology outpatient clinics between September 18, 2023, and October 27, 2023. These clinics were staffed by the same physicians who were unaware of the content and details of the study. A total of 762 patients (394 patients in protocol 1 and 368 patients in protocol 2) were included in the study. The mean overall impression score for computer-generated EHRs was higher versus physician EHRs (4.2 vs. 2.6; Conclusions: We observed that the patient-provider portal, systematically collecting symptom and clinical data from patients through a computer algorithm known as AACE, yielded records that were of higher quality, more comprehensive, better organized, and more relevant compared to those documented by physicians.
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.