ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2025
Process mining applications in healthcare: a systematic literature review.
Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reforming hospital management education with the P-MASE pedagogy: a randomized controlled trial.BMC medical education · 2026Trial
- Who measures the measurers: Closing the administrative accountability gap in non-profit acute care hospitals.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- The application of process mining for clinical pathways: a systematic literature review protocol.Systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Application of process mining in healthcare logistics: a systematic literature review protocol.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Investigating the impact of outpatient services on length of stay: an easily interpretable approach.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- An Integrated Predictive Impact-Enhanced Process Mining Framework for Strategic Oncology Workflow Optimization: Case Study in Iran.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Process mining applications in healthcare is a field widely investigated in the last years. Its diffusion is driven by increasing digitalization and the availability of large quantities of clinical data, enabling hospitals, clinics, and other healthcare organizations to optimize workflows, reduce operational costs, and improve asset management. The importance of process mining lies in its potential to identify inefficiencies in processes, standardize clinical practices, support evidence-based decisions and, in general, improve the quality of care provided. The article aims to systematically review the research landscape in the field of process mining in healthcare, providing an in-depth understanding of how process mining is applied in healthcare. It contributes to the existing literature by highlighting the following aspects: the specific research topics covered (i), the extent of use of various process mining algorithms in different healthcare applications, showing their adaptability and effectiveness in specific contexts (ii), and, finally, the types and characteristics of data employed in these studies, highlighting the needs and challenges related to data in healthcare process mining (iii). Through this systematic literature review, the article can support researchers in identifying the most valuable research topic to be explored by the scientific community working on process mining in healthcare. To achieve this goal, several articles focusing on the algorithms and data employed were selected and analyzed. The final discussion highlights current research gaps, suggesting future areas of investigation, and identifies critical issues and vulnerabilities of existing process mining applications in healthcare.
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.