Trends in evaluation research 1982 - 2002: A study on how the quality of it evaluation studies develop

Studies in Health Technology and Informatics

Volumn 116, Issue , 2005, Pages 581-586

  De Keizer, Nicolette ^a   Ammenwerth, Elske ^b  

^a ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY FOR HEALTH SCIENCES   (Austria)

Author keywords

Evaluation studies; Hospital information systems; Information management; Quality of studies; Study design

Indexed keywords

ABSTRACTING; HEALTH CARE; INFORMATION MANAGEMENT; PETROLEUM RESERVOIR EVALUATION;

EVALUATION RESEARCH; EVALUATION STUDY; HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE; HOSPITAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS; LONG-TERM DEVELOPMENT; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; QUALITY INDICATORS; STUDY DESIGN;

QUALITY CONTROL;

HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HUMAN; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; MEDLINE; METHODOLOGY;

DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE; HUMANS; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; PUBMED; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 77957569590     PISSN: 09269630     EISSN: 18798365     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (16)

1. Ammenwerth E, Brender J, Nykänen P, Prokosch H-U, Rigby M, 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 2004;73(6):479-91.
2. Heathfield H, Buchan I. Current evaluations of information technology in health care are often inadequate. BMJ 1996;313(7063):1008.
3. Kaplan B. Evaluating informatics applications - some alternative approaches: Theory, social interactionism, and call for methodological pluralism. International Journal of Medical Informatics 2001;64:39-56.
4. Tierney W, Overhage J, McDonald C. A Plea for Controlled Trials in Medical Informatics. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 1994;1(4):353-5.
5. Moehr JR. Evaluation: salvation or nemesis of medical informatics? Comput Biol Med 2002;32(3):113-25.
6. Ammenwerth E, de Keizer N. An inventory of evaluation studies of information technology in health care: Trends in evaluation research 1982 - 2002. In: Fieschi M, Coiera E, Jack LI Y-C, editors. Proceedings of the 11th World Congress on Medical Informatics (Medinfo 2004); 7 - 11 September 2004, San Francisco; 2004. p. 1289-1294.
7. Ammenwerth E, de Keizer N. An inventory of evaluation studies of information technology in health care: Trends in evaluation research 1982 - 2002. Methods Inf Med 2005;44:44-56.
8. Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. Clinical research in general medical journals: A 30-year perspective. N Engl J Med 1979;301(4):180-3.
9. Mihan L, Windeler J. Methodological quality of controlled studies in the Medizinische Klinik. Med Klin 1999;94(1):1-8.
10. CEBM. Levels of Evidence. 2004. Available from: http://www.cebm.net/ levels-of-evidence.asp.
11. 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 Epid 1998(51):1235-41.
12. Greenhalgh T, Taylor R. How to read a paper: Papers that go beyond numbers (qualitative research). BMJ 1997;315:740-743.
13. Moher D. The CONSORT Statement: Revised Recommendations for Improving the Quality of Reports of Parallel-Group Randomized Trials. Annals of Internal Medicine 2001;134(8):657-662.
14. 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 Inform Assoc 2003;10(5):512-4.
15. van der Loo R. Overview of Published Assessment and Evaluation Studies. In: van Gennip EMSJ, Talmon JS, editors. Assessment and evaluation of information technologies. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 1995. p. 261-82.
16. Johnston M, Langton K, Haynes R, Mathieu A. Effects of Computer-based Clinical Decision Support Systems on Clinician Performance and Patient Outcome - A Critical Appraisal of Research. Annuals of Internal Medicine 1994;120:135-42.