Cited by 101Electronic Health Records SystemsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationKnowledge Management and Technology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The state of the art in clinical knowledge management: An inventory of tools and techniques

Open access
Sittig, Dean F., Wright, Adam, Simonaitis, Linas, Carpenter, James D., Allen, George O., Doebbeling, Bradley N., Sirajuddin, Anwar Mohammad, Ash, Joan S., Middleton, Blackford·2010·International Journal of Medical Informatics

Abstract

Purpose To explore the need for, and use of, high-quality, collaborative, clinical knowledge management (CKM) tools and techniques to manage clinical decision support (CDS) content.Methods In order to better understand the current state of the art in CKM, we developed a survey of potential CKM tools and techniques. We conducted an exploratory study by querying a convenience sample of respondents about their use of specific practices in CKM.Results The following tools and techniques should be priorities in organizations interested in developing successful computer-based provider order entry (CPOE) and CDS implementations: (1) a multidisciplinary team responsible for creating and maintaining the clinical content; (2) an external organizational repository of clinical content with web-based viewer that allows anyone in the organization to review it; (3) an online, collaborative, interactive, Internet-based tool to facilitate content development; (4) an enterprise-wide tool to maintain the controlled clinical terminology concepts. Even organizations that have been successfully using computer-based provider order entry with advanced clinical decision support features for well over 15 years are not using all of the CKM tools or practices that we identified.Conclusions If we are to further stimulate progress in the area of clinical decision support, we must continue to develop and refine our understanding and use of advanced CKM capabilities.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2009.09.003

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 39 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Wright, 2008, A framework and model for evaluating clinical decision support architectures, J. Biomed. Inform.
  2. Sittig, 2008, Grand challenges in clinical decision support, J. Biomed. Inform., 41, 387, 10.1016/j.jbi.2007.09.003 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Dolin, 2004, Kaiser Permanente's convergent medical terminology, Medinfo, 11, 346

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 101

Metadata

Authors
Sittig, D. F., Wright, A., Simonaitis, L., Carpenter, J. D., Allen, G. O., Doebbeling, B. N., Sirajuddin, A. M., Ash, J. S., & Middleton, B.
Affiliations
  • Memorial Hermann (US)
  • Regenstrief Institute (US)
  • Health Services Research & Development (US)
  • Oregon Health & Science University (US)
Corresponding author
Sittig, Dean F.
Venue
International Journal of Medical Informatics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-01
Volume
79
Issue
1
Pages
44-57
ISSN
1386-5056 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1982907589
Cited by
101
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 14
FWCI
21.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Medical Informatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • IUScholarWorks (Indiana University) (submittedVersion)
  • Purdue University Indianapolis (Indiana University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
  • U.S. National Library of Medicine (R01LM006942, R56LM006942)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Knowledge Management and Technology
Keywords
clinical knowledge management, clinical decision support, collaborative content development
MeSH terms
Hospital Information Systems, Humans, Terminology as Topic, Patient Care Team, Software, United States, User-Computer Interface, Information Storage and Retrieval, Medical Records Systems, Computerized, Vocabulary, Controlled, Health Care Surveys, Decision Support Systems, Clinical, Internet, Interdisciplinary Communication

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review