ArticleApplied clinical informatics2025
A Case Report in Using a Laboratory-Based Decision Support Alert for Research Enrollment and Randomization.
Article in Applied clinical informatics, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Our objective was to identify barriers to implementing a custom clinical decision support (CDS) alert to randomize individuals in a pragmatic study, specifically those with a positive antinuclear antibody (ANA) test.We integrated a validated logistic regression model into the electronic health record to predict the risk of developing autoimmune disease for individuals with a positive ANA (titer ≥ 1:80). A custom CDS alert was created to randomize eligible individuals into a pragmatic study evaluating whether the risk model reduces time to autoimmune disease diagnosis. The custom CDS alert runs silently in the background and is not visible to providers. Individuals were randomized to either an intervention or control arm. In the intervention arm, the study team reviewed risk model results, notified providers of high-risk scores, and offered expedited rheumatology referrals to high-risk individuals in addition to standard of care. The control arm received standard care only. The study team accessed a daily Epic report containing randomization assignments and model variables.Starting in June 2023, the risk model assessed 3,961 individuals and successfully randomized 2,105 individuals to date. Technical challenges that prevented the custom CDS alert from firing included an unanticipated change in the laboratory testing vendor and reporting due to a broken laboratory machine, followed by a change in the laboratory test name.This case report showcases the successful implementation of a laboratory-based custom CDS alert to randomize individuals for a pragmatic study. This approach enabled our study to be feasible across a large health care system. Key lessons learned included the importance of close collaboration with the laboratory team and thorough understanding of the laboratory testing, workflow, and reporting to ensure successful execution of the laboratory-based custom CDS alert.
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.