ArticlePloS one2025
Differences among specialists in using the Electronic Medical Record alert system for HCV screening in outpatients at a large general hospital.
Article in PloS one, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND &
objectivesSome hepatitis C virus (HCV) patients remain underdiagnosed at a large hospital. The electronic medical record (EMR) alert system can increase in-hospital screening. This study evaluates the effectiveness of screening among outpatients and assesses variations in physician engagement across different specialties.
methodsFrom December 2022 to April 2023, outpatients aged 45-79 years, with diabetes mellitus or chronic kidney disease, who did not have anti-HCV data in their EMR were identified. A pop-up alert prompted physicians to either order anti-HCV testing or refer patients for a health check-up. The frequency of alerts, physician response rates, blood test completion rates, and HCV seropositivity were analyzed by specialty.
resultsOf 85,320 alerts generated, 61.4% elicited a physician response. Internal Medicine clinics had significantly higher response rates than non-Internal Medicine clinics (77.5% versus 44.6%, P < 0.01). Among patients with physician responses, 30.9% completed the study, with markedly higher completion when blood tests were directly ordered compared to referrals (88.4% versus 7.2%, P < 0.01). The monthly number of screenings increased tenfold after the system was implemented. Overall, 22,377 patients (26.2%) were screened, and 485 (2.17%) were seropositive. One-fourth of seropositive cases were identified in non-Internal Medicine clinics, where the positivity rate was higher (2.7% versus 2.04%, P = 0.01).
conclusionsShort-term use of the EMR alert system increased HCV detection among outpatients. The default test orders in the EMR improved completion rates more than referrals to a health check-up. There were differences in physician engagement and seropositive case detection among specialties. Targeted interventions, particularly among specialties with lower engagement, are necessary to improve the success of HCV screening.
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.