Effects of Computer-based Clinical Decision Support Systems on Clinician Performance and Patient Outcome: A Critical Appraisal of Research

By M. Johnston, K. Langton, R. B. Haynes, A. Mathieu. 1994

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Interval Coded Scoring: a toolbox for interpretable scoring systems (2018, background): “…to the increase of 42 computational power, but also due to the enormous amount of medical data that has become available in increase practitioner performance and improve patient outcome, while decreasing the costs at the same time (Johnston et al., 1994; Garg et al., 2005; Chaudhry et al., 2006).”
Evaluation of health information systems - problems and challenges (2003, unknown): “[70—73]).”
Electronic Health Records: Then, Now, and in the Future (2016, unknown): “Early CDS included drug-allergy, drugdrug, and abnormal laboratory test results while other areas were being covered as well [36, 37].”
GLIF3: a representation format for sharable computer-interpretable clinical practice guidelines (2004, unknown): “practice [6].”
Proxy tasks and subjective measures can be misleading in evaluating explainable AI systems (2020, unknown): “, management [15], medicine [20], justice [47]).”
Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: Methods of a decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review (2010, background): “The most recent of these [1] included 87 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 13 non-randomized trials of CCDSSs, published up to September 2004.”