↓ Skip to main content

Analysis of the process of representing clinical statements for decision-support applications: a comparison of openEHR archetypes and HL7 virtual medical record

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Systems, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Analysis of the process of representing clinical statements for decision-support applications: a comparison of openEHR archetypes and HL7 virtual medical record
Published in
Journal of Medical Systems, May 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10916-016-0524-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

A. González-Ferrer, M. Peleg, M. Marcos, J. A. Maldonado

Abstract

Delivering patient-specific decision-support based on computer-interpretable guidelines (CIGs) requires mapping CIG clinical statements (data items, clinical recommendations) into patients' data. This is most effectively done via intermediate data schemas, which enable querying the data according to the semantics of a shared standard intermediate schema. This study aims to evaluate the use of HL7 virtual medical record (vMR) and openEHR archetypes as intermediate schemas for capturing clinical statements from CIGs that are mappable to electronic health records (EHRs) containing patient data and patient-specific recommendations. Using qualitative research methods, we analyzed the encoding of ten representative clinical statements taken from two CIGs used in real decision-support systems into two health information models (openEHR archetypes and HL7 vMR instances) by four experienced informaticians. Discussion among the modelers about each case study example greatly increased our understanding of the capabilities of these standards, which we share in this educational paper. Differing in content and structure, the openEHR archetypes were found to contain a greater level of representational detail and structure while the vMR representations took fewer steps to complete. The use of openEHR in the encoding of CIG clinical statements could potentially facilitate applications other than decision-support, including intelligent data analysis and integration of additional properties of data items from existing EHRs. On the other hand, due to their smaller size and fewer details, the use of vMR potentially supports quicker mapping of EHR data into clinical statements.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users 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 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 74 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 25%
Student > Master 18 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 12%
Other 3 4%
Student > Bachelor 3 4%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 12 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 23 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 14%
Engineering 6 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Psychology 3 4%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 18 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 21 September 2016.
All research outputs
#3,954,185
of 24,527,858 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Systems
#119
of 1,223 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,360
of 339,368 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Systems
#7
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,527,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,223 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
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 339,368 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.