The quality of evidence in health informatics: How did the quality of healthcare IT evaluation publications develop from 1982 to 2005?

International Journal of Medical Informatics

Volumn 77, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 41-49

  de Keizer, N F ^a   Ammenwerth, E ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY FOR HEALTH SCIENCES   (Austria)

Author keywords

Evaluation studies; Information management; Quality of publications; Review

Indexed keywords

INFORMATION MANAGEMENT; INFORMATION SCIENCE; INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY;

EVALUATION STUDIES; HEALTH INFORMATICS; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; QUALITY OF PUBLICATIONS; SPEARMAN CORRELATION COEFFICIENT;

HEALTH CARE;

ARTICLE; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDLINE; METHODOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; RANDOMIZATION;

EUROPE; EVALUATION STUDIES AS TOPIC; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 36448997377     PISSN: 13865056     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2006.11.009     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century (2001), National Academy Press, Washington
2. Koppel R., Metlay J., Cohen A., Abaluck B., Localio A., SE K., et al. Role of computerized physician order entry systems in facilitating medication errors. JAMA 293 10 (2005) 1197-2003
3. Han Y.Y., Carcillo J.A., and Venkataraman S.T. Unexpected increased mortality after implementation of a commercially sold computerized physician order entry system. Pediatrics 116 6 (2006) 1506-1512
4. Ammenwerth E., Brender J., Nykänen P., Prokosch H.U., Rigby M., and Talmon J. Visions and strategies to improve evaluation of health information systems-reflections and lessons based on the HIS-EVAL workshop in Innsbruck. Int. J. Med. Inf. 73 6 (2004) 479-491
5. M. Rigby, Evaluation: 16 powerful reasons why not to do it-and 6 over-riding imperatives. In: V. Patel, R. Rogers, R. Haux (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th World Congress on Medical Informatics (Medinfo 2001), 84th ed., IOS Press, Amsterdam, 2001, pp. 1198-1202.
6. Friedman C., and Wyatt J.C. Evaluation Methods in Medical Informatics (1997), Springer, New York
7. H. Heathfield, V. Peel, P. Hudson, S. Kay, L. Mackay, T. Marley, et al. Evaluating large scale health information systems: from practice towards theory. In: D. Masys (Ed.), AMIA Annual Fall Symposium, Hanley & Belfus, Philadelphia, 1997, pp. 116-120.
8. Moehr J.R. Evaluation: salvation or nemesis of medical informatics?. Comput. Biol. Med. 32 3 (2002) 113-125
9. Ammenwerth E., and de Keizer N. An inventory of evaluation studies of information technology in health care: trends in evaluation research 1982-2002. Meth. Inf. Med. 44 (2005) 44-56
10. Aoki N., Dunn K., Johnson-Throop K., and Turley J. Outcomes and methods in telemedicine evaluation. Telemed. J. E: Health 9 4 (2003) 393-401
11. Whitten P., Mair F., Haycox A., May C., Williams T., and Hellmich S. Systematic review of cost effectiveness studies of telemedicine interventions. BMJ 324 (2002) 1434-1437
12. Garg A., Adhikari N., McDonald H., Rosas-Arellano M., Devereaux P., Beyene J., et al. Effects of computerised clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes. A systematic review. JAMA 293 (2005) 1223-1238
13. Ross S., and Lin C. The effects of promoting patient access to medical records: a review. J. Am. Med. Inf. Assoc. 10 (2003) 129-138
14. Currell R., Wainwright P., and Urquhart C. Nursing record systems: effects on nursing practice and health care outcomes (Cochrane review). The Cochrane Library, Issue 1 (2000), Update Software, Oxford
15. Mair F., and Whitten P. Systematic review of studies of patient satisfaction with telemedicine. Br. Med. J. 320 7248 (2000) 1517-1520
16. Bath F.J., Owen V.E., and Bath P.M. Quality of full and final publications reporting acute stroke trials. A systematic review. Stroke 29 (1998) 2203-2210
17. Begg C., Cho M., Eastwood S., Horton R., Moher D., Olkin I., et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials-the CONSORT statement. JAMA 276 8 (1996) 637-639
18. Fletcher R.H., and Fletcher S.W. Clinical research in general medical journals: a 30-year perspective. N. Engl. J. Med. 301 (1979) 180-183
19. Moher D. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Ann. Intern. Med. 134 8 (2001) 657-662
20. Altman D. Better reporting of randomised controlled trials: the CONSORT statement. BMJ 313 (1996) 570-571
21. Heathfield H., and Buchan I. Current evaluations of information technology in health care are often inadequate. BMJ 313 7063 (1996) 1008
22. Kaplan B. Evaluating informatics applications-some alternative approaches: theory, social interactionism, and call for methodological pluralism. Int. J. Med. Inf. 64 (2001) 39-56
23. Harris A.D., McGregor J.C., Perencevich E.N., Furuno J.P., Zhu J., Peterson D.E., et al. The use and interpretation of quasi-experimental studies in medical informatics. J. Am. Med. Inf. Assoc. 13 1 (2006) 16-23
24. Cochrane Collaboration, Glossary of Terms in The Cochrane Collaboration, Version 4.2.5, update May 2005. Available from: URL: www.cochrane.org.
25. van der Loo R. Overview of published assessment and evaluation studies. In: van Gennip E.M.S.J., and Talmon J.S. (Eds). Assessment and Evaluation of Information Technologies in Medicine (1995), IOS Press, Amsterdam 261-282
26. Mihan L., and Windeler J. Methodological quality of controlled studies in the "Medizinische Klinik" journal. Analysis of contributions appearing between 1979 and 1996 (in German). Med. Klin. 94 1 (1999) 1-8
27. Downs S.H., and Black N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 52 Jun 6 (1998) 377-384
28. Johnston M., Langton K., Haynes R., and Mathieu A. Effects of computer-based clinical decision support systems on clinician performance and patient outcome-a critical appraisal of research. Annu. Intern. Med. 120 (1994) 135-142
29. Roine R., Ohinmaa A., and Hailey D. Assessing telemedicine: a systematic review of the literature. CMAJ 165 6 (2001) 765-771
30. Verhagen A., de Vet H., de Bie R., Kessels A., Boers M., Bouter L., et al. The Delphi list; a criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by Delphi consensus. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 51 (1998) 1235-1241
31. Hall G., Smith R., Drummond G., Norman J., Spence A., Lilleyman J., et al. How to Write A Paper (1994), BMJ Publishing Group
32. Greenhalgh T., and Taylor R. How to read a paper: papers that go beyond numbers (qualitative research). BMJ 315 (1997) 740-743
33. Borreani, Miccinesi, and Brunelli L. An increasing number of qualitative research papers in oncology and palliative care: does it mean a thorough development of the methodology of research?. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2 1 (2004) 1-23
34. Ammenwerth E., Wolff A., Knaup P., Ulmer H., Skonetzki S., van Bemmel J., et al. Developing and evaluating criteria to help reviewers of biomedical informatics manuscripts. J. Am. Med. Inf. Assoc. 10 5 (2003) 512-514
35. Altman D. Relation between two continuous variables. Pract. Statist. Med. Res. (1991) 277-324
36. Godman C. Literature Searching and Evidence Interpretation for Assessing Health Care Practices (1993), Norstedts Tryckeri AB, Stockholm