ArticleJAMIA open2025
Assessment of 3 standards-based clinical decision support (CDS) tools in an academic electronic health record using Clinical Quality Language, CDS Hooks, and Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources: a retrospective evaluation.
Article in JAMIA open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate clinical decision support (CDS) of varying complexities and care settings represented using Health Information Technology (HIT) standards-Clinical Quality Language (CQL) for representing clinical logic and Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) for health information exchange. Materials and Methods: This Institutional Review Board-approved, retrospective study was performed at an academic medical center (January 1, 2023-December 31, 2023). Recommendations extracted from patient-centered outcomes guidelines were translated into standardized syntax (SNOMED CT) and representations (CQL, FHIR). Clinical decision support Hooks applications were developed for: CDS1-provides education for emergency department (ED) patients with venous thromboembolism; CDS2-recommends CT pulmonary angiogram in ED patients with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) and uses FHIR Questionnaire resources for representing interactive content; CDS3-recommends mammography/breast magnetic resonance imaging surveillance in outpatients with breast cancer history. We randomly selected 50 ED patients with suspected PE and 50 outpatients undergoing breast imaging surveillance. We compared outcomes of false-positive alerts and the accuracy of CDS1, the more complex CDS2, and CDS3 for outpatients. Results: Clinical decision support Hooks applications used CQL logic for trigger expressions and logic files and provided recommendations to ED and outpatient providers. CDS1 had a false-positive alert and accuracy of 11.1% and 98%, respectively, not significantly different from CDS2 (0.0% false-positive alerts, Discussion: Health Information Technology standards can represent recommendations of varying complexities in various care settings. Conclusion: The potential to represent CDS using standardized syntax and formats can help facilitate the dissemination of CDS-consumable artifacts.
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.