↓ Skip to main content

A systematic review of near real-time and point-of-care clinical decision support in anesthesia information management systems

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
114 Mendeley
Title
A systematic review of near real-time and point-of-care clinical decision support in anesthesia information management systems
Published in
Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing, August 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10877-016-9921-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Allan F. Simpao, Jonathan M. Tan, Arul M. Lingappan, Jorge A. Gálvez, Sherry E. Morgan, Michael A. Krall

Abstract

Anesthesia information management systems (AIMS) are sophisticated hardware and software technology solutions that can provide electronic feedback to anesthesia providers. This feedback can be tailored to provide clinical decision support (CDS) to aid clinicians with patient care processes, documentation compliance, and resource utilization. We conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed articles on near real-time and point-of-care CDS within AIMS using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols. Studies were identified by searches of the electronic databases Medline and EMBASE. Two reviewers screened studies based on title, abstract, and full text. Studies that were similar in intervention and desired outcome were grouped into CDS categories. Three reviewers graded the evidence within each category. The final analysis included 25 articles on CDS as implemented within AIMS. CDS categories included perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis, post-operative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis, vital sign monitors and alarms, glucose management, blood pressure management, ventilator management, clinical documentation, and resource utilization. Of these categories, the reviewers graded perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis and clinical documentation as having strong evidence per the peer reviewed literature. There is strong evidence for the inclusion of near real-time and point-of-care CDS in AIMS to enhance compliance with perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis and clinical documentation. Additional research is needed in many other areas of AIMS-based CDS.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 113 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 12%
Researcher 12 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Student > Postgraduate 7 6%
Other 31 27%
Unknown 25 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 11%
Computer Science 7 6%
Engineering 6 5%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Other 14 12%
Unknown 33 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 September 2016.
All research outputs
#18,467,278
of 22,882,389 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing
#503
of 677 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#240,299
of 313,450 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing
#7
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,882,389 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 677 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 313,450 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.