The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 46 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 32 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Blockchain in healthcare and health sciences—A scoping review
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Blockchain can be described as an immutable ledger, logging data entries in a decentralized manner. This new technology has been suggested to disrupt a wide range of data-driven domains, including the health domain. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to systematically review, assess and synthesize peer-reviewed publications utilizing/proposing to utilize blockchain to improve processes and services in healthcare, health sciences and health education. METHOD: A structured literature search on the topic was conducted in October 2018 relevant bibliographic databases. RESULT: 39 publications fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The result indicates that Electronic Health Records and Personal Health Records are the most targeted areas using blockchain technology. Access control, interoperability, provenance and data integrity are all issues that are meant to be improved by blockchain technology in this field. Ethereum and Hyperledger fabric seem to be the most used platforms/frameworks in this domain. CONCLUSION: This study shows that the endeavors of using blockchain technology in the health domain are increasing exponentially. There are areas within the health domain that potentially could be highly impacted by blockchain technology.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This scoping review systematically assessed 39 peer-reviewed publications on blockchain in healthcare, health sciences, and health education. It found that EHRs and PHRs are the most targeted areas, consortium blockchains and Ethereum/Hyperledger are common, but the field remains early and lacks evidence of real-world effects and regulatory compliance.
Key findings
- Of 39 included publications, 43% targeted electronic health records, 15% personal health records, and 5% clinical trial support systems; 62% addressed some process of sharing health data.
- Blockchain was proposed to improve access control in 35% of publications, interoperability in 27%, data integrity in 28%, and provenance in 12%.
- Consortium blockchain was the preferred type (38%); Ethereum was used in 28%, Hyperledger Fabric in 10%, and Exonum in 4%; 36% developed a new blockchain and 21% did not specify a platform. PoW was the most frequent consensus algorithm (21%), PBFT was 15%, 41% did not state a consensus protocol, and 38% used smart contracts.
- The average citation count was 21 ± 40 (up to March 2019); publications by year were 2016 (n = 4), 2017 (n = 11), and 2018 (n = 23); most studies were associated with Chinese (42%) or USA (20%) research institutes. Quality assessment total mean score was 5.7 ± 1.8, with a range of 1–9.
Methods
- A structured literature search was conducted in October 2018 in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Google Scholar, Compendex, Inspec, ACM, and IEEE, searching for “blockchain” combined with “health” and using backward/forward snowballing.
- Titles, abstracts, and full articles were screened by reviewer 1, with doubtful cases reviewed by three additional reviewers; disagreements were resolved by discussion. Data were extracted into a pre-developed matrix and analyzed in Microsoft Excel.
- Quality assessment used a tool adapted from Hölbl et al.; no papers were excluded in this process. All included papers were categorized as Proof-of-Concept design, and eleven were considered a hybrid between Proof-of-Concept and case-study design.
Limitations
- The paper states that the review does not capture the whole picture, especially promising private-sector developments not covered in the included publications, such as genome management and medical credential systems.
- The paper states that none of the included publications described how their blockchain-based solution complied with GDPR, HIPAA, or other national health data laws and regulations.
- Evident from the text: many included publications failed to define their blockchain type, platform/framework, or consensus protocol, limiting comparability and feasibility assessment; the search was last updated in October 2018, so later work is not included.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
47 Own result · 18 Not checked yet · 10 Own interpretation · 8 No basis given · 4 Own method
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“39 publications fulfilled the inclusion criteria.”
- Also stated in: § 4. Results · plain
“The following section presents a summary of the extracted data from the included papers (n = 39).”
§ Blockchain in healthcare and health sciences-A scoping review > Abstract
plainn = 39- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 4. Results · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“More than half of the publications (62 %) addressed some processes of sharing health data.”
§ Blockchain in healthcare and health sciences-A scoping review > 4.1.1. Summary of proposed solutions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The most frequently targeted system was EHR, with 43 % of the publications addressing this topic.”
§ Blockchain in healthcare and health sciences-A scoping review > 4.1.1. Summary of proposed solutions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The result indicates that Electronic Health Records and Personal Health Records are the most targeted areas using blockchain technology.”
- Also stated in: § 4.1.1. Summary of proposed solutions · plain
“The most frequently targeted system was EHR, with 43 % of the publications addressing this topic.Other systems of focus were PHR (15 %) and clinical trial support systems (5 %).”
§ Blockchain in healthcare and health sciences-A scoping review > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 4.1.1. Summary of proposed solutions · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many of the PHRs were proposed as patient-controlled and not tethered to a particular health institution or system (Table 6).”
§ Blockchain in healthcare and health sciences-A scoping review > 4.1.1. Summary of proposed solutions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Ethereum and Hyperledger fabric seem to be the most used platforms/frameworks in this domain.”
§ Blockchain in healthcare and health sciences-A scoping review > Abstract
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This study shows that the endeavors of using blockchain technology in the health domain are increasing exponentially.”
- Also stated in: § Quality Assessment Query · plain
“The included papers were published during the following years; 2016 (n = 4), 2017 (n = 11) and 2018 (n = 23).”
§ Blockchain in healthcare and health sciences-A scoping review > Abstract
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Quality Assessment Query · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although several of the papers failed to define their approach (26 %), private-(10 %) and public blockchains (15 %) appears to be less used in the health domain (Fig. 4).”
§ Blockchain in healthcare and health sciences-A scoping review > 4.2. Technical details of the proposed blockchain concepts 4.2.1. Type of blockchain
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Blockchain solutions for the interoperability challenges were discussed in several papers (27 %) (Table 5).”
§ Blockchain in healthcare and health sciences-A scoping review > Health Information system
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Eight (21 %) of the included studies failed to specify a platform or framework for their concept (Fig. 4).”
§ Blockchain in healthcare and health sciences-A scoping review > 4.2.2. Blockchain platform/framework
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 25
- It may state two separate claims as one. 17
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The included papers were published during the following years; 2016 (n = 4), 2017 (n = 11) and 2018 (n = 23).”
§ Blockchain in healthcare and health sciences-A scoping review > Quality Assessment Query
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most studies were associated with Chinese research institutes or research groups (42 %) followed by institutes and groups in the USA (20 %).”
§ Blockchain in healthcare and health sciences-A scoping review > Quality Assessment Query
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Access control, interoperability, provenance and data integrity are all issues that are meant to be improved by blockchain technology in this field.”
- Also stated in: § 4.1.2. Challenges which blockchain aims to improve · plain
“As illustraded in Table 5, blockchain was suggested as an improvement to access control in 35 % of the included publications.”
- Also stated in: § Health Information system · plain
“Blockchain solutions for the interoperability challenges were discussed in several papers (27 %) (Table 5).”
§ Blockchain in healthcare and health sciences-A scoping review > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 4.1.2. Challenges which blockchain aims to improve · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The papers had an average citation count of 21 ± 40 (up to March 2019).”
§ Blockchain in healthcare and health sciences-A scoping review > Quality Assessment Query
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As shown in Table 4, the included publications seem to be evenly distributed between journal publications and conference proceedings.”
§ Blockchain in healthcare and health sciences-A scoping review > 4.1. Bibliographic overview
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A large proportion proposed a structural design (54 %) as main contribution, followed by proposals including new algorithms or protocols (38 %) (Table 4).”
§ Blockchain in healthcare and health sciences-A scoping review > Quality Assessment Query
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“IEEE Access with five papers and The Journal of Medical Systems with six papers represented the journals with most included publications.”
§ Blockchain in healthcare and health sciences-A scoping review > 4.1. Bibliographic overview
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Other systems of focus were PHR (15 %) and clinical trial support systems (5 %).”
§ Blockchain in healthcare and health sciences-A scoping review > 4.1.1. Summary of proposed solutions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, eleven of the included papers could be considered as a hybrid between a Proof-of-Concept and a Casestudy design.”
§ Blockchain in healthcare and health sciences-A scoping review > Quality Assessment Query
hedgedn = 11- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, it is also noteworthy that not all concepts that are built using the Ethereum platform or Ethereum protocols used PoW.”
§ Blockchain in healthcare and health sciences-A scoping review > 4.2.3. Consensus algorithm
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Ethereum was utilized in eleven (28 %) of the 39 included publications, Hyperledger Fabric four times (10 %) and Exonum once (4 %) (Fig. 4).”
§ Blockchain in healthcare and health sciences-A scoping review > 4.2.2. Blockchain platform/framework
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The quality of the included publications varies with a standard deviation of 1.8 for the total mean score and a range of 1-9.”
§ Blockchain in healthcare and health sciences-A scoping review > 4.3. Quality assessment
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Ethereum (decentralized platform) (5) and Hyperledger (framework) [9] are so far the most popular, and both allow developers to build new blockchain applications onto existing blockchains and to create new test-nets using their protocols.”
§ Blockchain in healthcare and health sciences-A scoping review > 2.1.3. Existing or new blockchains
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [9]
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Data was extracted from the included papers in a pre-development matrix.The data extraction was mainly done by reviewer 1 [AH] and later re-examined by reviewers 2-4 [AF, KK and DG].”
§ Blockchain in healthcare and health sciences-A scoping review > 3.3. Data extraction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Titles, abstracts and full articles were subsequently screened by reviewer 1 [AH] applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria (Appendix B -Protocol).Publications meeting the inclusive criteria, and those for which the first reviewer was in doubt, were reviewed a second time by three additional reviewers [AF, KK and DG].In cases of disagreement, a discussion between all four reviewers determined”
§ Blockchain in healthcare and health sciences-A scoping review > 3.2. Selection process
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To both maintain the patient's privacy and exchange data with other institutions in the healthcare ecosystem, access control, provenance, data integrity and interoperability are crucial.”
§ Blockchain in healthcare and health sciences-A scoping review > 2.2. The potential of blockchain in the health domain
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The blockchain Ethereum is at this date the largest facilitator of smart contracts on blockchain [5].”
§ Blockchain in healthcare and health sciences-A scoping review > 2. Background
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [5]
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Bitcoin, with close to 400 million completed transactions (March 19, 2019) [2], represents a solid use-case that blockchain technology works.”
§ Blockchain in healthcare and health sciences-A scoping review > 1. Introduction and rationale
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [2]
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With some of its key attributes such as decentralization, distribution and data integrity, and without any necessary third party, blockchain technology has many appealing properties that could be utilized to improve and obtain a higher level of interoperability, information sharing, access control, provenance and data integrity among the mentioned stakeholders, thereby moving towards a new”
§ Blockchain in healthcare and health sciences-A scoping review > 2.2. The potential of blockchain in the health domain
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“Although blockchain technology is considered to have potential for real improvement of health information systems [3], the recent hype surrounding this technology similarly entails unrealistic proposals and ideas and current literature provides little overview of applications that have been developed, tested and/or deployed.”
§ Blockchain in healthcare and health sciences-A scoping review > 1. Introduction and rationale
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [3]
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this scoping literature review, we have found that the research on the explorative use of blockchain in healthcare is an academic research topic in its infancy but that the number of research groups approaches and proposed solutions currently is growing exponentially.”
§ Blockchain in healthcare and health sciences-A scoping review > 5. Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A smart-contract function, which often has the purpose of reducing third party interaction, has the potential of making health informatic processes more efficient.”
§ Blockchain in healthcare and health sciences-A scoping review > 5. Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The strength of this publication is its stringent inclusion criteria and the quality assessment approach.”
§ Blockchain in healthcare and health sciences-A scoping review > 5. Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although this study provides a good overview of what has recently been investigated in an academic (peer-reviewed) setting, the review does not capture the whole picture of the development in the area.”
§ Blockchain in healthcare and health sciences-A scoping review > 5. Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: There are promising developments in the private sector in other areas of the health sector that are not covered in the included publications for this review, for example genome management and medical credential systems.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Judged from the number of blockchain-related publications on Google Scholar, the inauguration and growth of blockchain in healthcare as an academic field is in line with those in other academic sectors.”
§ Blockchain in healthcare and health sciences-A scoping review > 5. Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Since HIS deals with highly sensitive data [18], which usually entails that a limited number of entities should have access, a consortium blockchain may be more appropriate than a public permissionless and private to ensure that data are not accessible by those who have no view rights and also to comply with current health data regulations.”
§ Blockchain in healthcare and health sciences-A scoping review > 5. Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [18]
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“With stronger emphasis on team-based care and continuity of care across institutional borders, and identity management and access control across different health systems, the processes of sharing becomes important [58].”
§ Blockchain in healthcare and health sciences-A scoping review > 5. Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [58] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Since HIS deals with highly sensitive data [18], which usually entails that a limited number of entities should have access, a consortium blockchain may be more appropriate than a public permissionless and private to ensure that data are not accessible by those who have no view rights and also to comply with current health data regulations.”
§ Blockchain in healthcare and health sciences-A scoping review > 5. Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [18]
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Research on the use of blockchain in healthcare is now established as an academic field, and the number and quality of publications are increasing rapidly.”
§ Blockchain in healthcare and health sciences-A scoping review > 6. Conclusion
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The evidence collected in this review gives a clear indication that blockchain enhanced solutions for this area of the health system have a promising potential and needs to be explored further.”
§ Blockchain in healthcare and health sciences-A scoping review > 5. Discussion
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: M-health will increase at a rapid pace in the coming years.
In the paper
“This is an alternative take on the use of health information to fix a broken healthcare system and improve the continuity of care [59] which builds on the patient in a more empowered and controlling role.”
§ Blockchain in healthcare and health sciences-A scoping review > 5. Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [59] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This correlates well with the overall popularity of blockchain platforms.”
§ Blockchain in healthcare and health sciences-A scoping review > 5. Discussion
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper relies on this without support.
Current literature provides little overview of applications that have been developed, tested and/or deployed.
“current literature provides little overview of applications that have been developed, tested and/or deployed.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
M-health will increase at a rapid pace in the coming years.
“There is a reasonable assumption that m-health will increase at a rapid pace in the coming years and the need to verify and access m-health generated data by the health systems becomes crucial for the continued development of HIS and to insure that these data-driven systems stay up to date.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Healthcare institutions are in critical demand for new and improved trust-preserving solutions.
“Due to the over-arching importance of maintaining trust while satisfying an ever-increasing demand for exchange of data within the healthcare ecosystem, healthcare institutions are in critical demand for new and improved trust-preserving solutions.”
The paper relies on this without support.
M-health is a rather new field and lacks a common data infrastructure and, to some degree, lacks common regulation around dealing with health data and getting the data accepted by the established health system.
“M-health is a rather new field and lacks a common data infrastructure and, to some degree, lacks common regulation around dealing with health data and getting the data accepted by the established health system.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There are promising developments in the private sector in other areas of the health sector that are not covered in the included publications for this review, for example genome management and medical credential systems.
“There are promising developments in the private sector in other areas of the health sector that are not covered in the included publications for this review; for example, genome management and medical credential systems.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The blockchain technology market in the global healthcare industrial sector is expected to cross $500 million by 2022.
“This trend is also noticeable in the global healthcare industrial sector, where the blockchain technology market is expected to cross $500 million by 2022.”
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“While these SLRs have contributed to the extant body of knowledge, their focus has primarily been on synthesizing or delineating trends (e.g.Hasselgren et al., 2020) and areas of blockchain application (see Risius & Spohrer, 2017;Hölbl et al. 2018;Agbo et al. 2019;Jaoude & Saade, 2019).”
From Blockchain in healthcare: A systematic literature review, synthesizing framework and future research agenda (2020) · cites this paper as Hasselgren et al., 2020
In the citing paper
“Given the sensitivity of wearable data, next-generation cybersecurity tools, such as blockchain111, should be considered because data breaches are expected as an eventuality rather than a mere possibility and because the data constantly move from one platform to another.”
From Smart wearable devices in cardiovascular care: Where we are and how to move forward (2021) · cites this paper as [111]
In the citing paper
“Up to date, blockchain has proved its success in healthcare and biomedical applications with promising performances in terms of healthcare data security [49], secure data management [50], [51], and transparent medical data storage [52], [53].”
From Blockchain and AI-Based Solutions to Combat Coronavirus (COVID-19)-Like Epidemics: A Survey (2021) · cites this paper as [49]
In the citing paper
“In one study, patients who were willing to share their health data with their physician (72%) but fewer with their health insurer or manufacturing companies (53%).57”
From Unlocking Tomorrow’s Health Care: Expanding the Clinical Scope of Wearables by Applying Artificial Intelligence (2024) · cites this paper as [57]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated major: it would touch a result — a value a result rests on, reported and recomputed p-values on opposite sides of the significance level, two passages that conflict with no sign which is right, or a cited work retracted before this paper was published.
In the paper
“| Grand Total | 39 |”
§ Blockchain in healthcare and health sciences-A scoping review > 6. Conclusion
Reported 39 · recomputed 33
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“Exonum once (4 %)”
§ Blockchain in healthcare and health sciences-A scoping review > 4.2.2. Blockchain platform/framework
Reported 4 · recomputed 2.564103
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Blockchain in healthcare and health sciences-A scoping review > Quality Assessment Query
“Q5 Are the proposed solutions feasible (scalable, economical, implementable)?”
§ Blockchain in healthcare and health sciences-A scoping review > 6. Conclusion
“| Q5 Problem solution fit |”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Blockchain in healthcare and health sciences-A scoping review > 6. Conclusion
“| Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance | 6 | 5, 8, 14, 21, 24, 37 |”
§ Blockchain in healthcare and health sciences-A scoping review > 6. Conclusion
“| Not defined | 16 | 1, 7, 8, 11-13, 16, 17, 25-28, |”
Citations
Cites
Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash SystemPreprint
Nakamoto, S. (2019) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3440802 · Cited by 14,677 · cited 6×
“The public blockchain is widely used in cryptocurrencies, and the two largest cryptocurrencies: Bitcoin [1] and Ethereum [5] (the main chain), are categorized as public permissionless chains.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialAn Overview of Blockchain Technology: Architecture, Consensus, and Future Trends
Zheng, Z., Xie, S., Dai, H., Chen, X., & Wang, H. (2017) · 2017 IEEE International Congress on Big Data (BigData Congress) · doi:10.1109/bigdatacongress.2017.85 · Cited by 4,515
MedRec: Using Blockchain for Medical Data Access and Permission Management
Azaria, A., Ekblaw, A., Vieira, T., & Lippman, A. (2016) · 2016 2nd International Conference on Open and Big Data (OBD) · doi:10.1109/obd.2016.11 · Cited by 2,526
Levy, Y. M., & Ellis, T. J. (2006) · Informing Science The International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline · doi:10.28945/479 · Cited by 1,724 · cited 2×
“As an important part of the review process a meticulous quality assessment of included publications was conducted [17].”
BackgroundMethodMeDShare: Trust-Less Medical Data Sharing Among Cloud Service Providers via Blockchain
Xia, Q., Sifah, E. B., Asamoah, K. O., Gao, J., Du, X., & Guizani, M. (2017) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2017.2730843 · Cited by 1,148 · cited 1×
“…control, data integrity, interoperability 12 [30] Electronic health records Sharing healthcare data between health institutions Data integrity 13 [31] Electronic health records Sharing healthcare data between health institutions Data integrity, access control 14 [32] Administrative systems…”
BackgroundPPCoin: Peer-to-Peer Crypto-Currency with Proof-of-Stake
King, S., & Nadal, S. (2012) · Cited by 984
Healthcare blockchain system using smart contracts for secure automated remote patient monitoring
Griggs, K. N., Ossipova, O., Kohlios, C. P., Baccarini, A. N., Howson, E. A., & Hayajneh, T. (2018) · Journal of Medical Systems · doi:10.1007/s10916-018-0982-x · Cited by 926 · cited 2×
“…20 [38] Electronic health records Patient data management and storage in a cloud environment Access control, data integrity, data provenance 21 [39] Population health management system Collection and storage of sensor data for remote patient monitoring purposes Data integrity, data provenance…”
BackgroundDagher, G. G., Mohler, J., Milojkovic, M., & Marella, P. B. (2018) · Sustainable Cities and Society · doi:10.1016/j.scs.2018.02.014 · Cited by 854 · cited 2×
“…health data/Electronic health records Managing access to personal health data and electronic health records Access control, data integrity 23 [41] Electronic health records Patients’ collection, archiving and sharing of healthcare data for clinical purposes Access control, data integrity,…”
BackgroundMethodFhirchain: applying blockchain to securely and scalably share clinical data
Zhang, P., White, J., Schmidt, D. C., Lenz, G., & Rosenbloom, S. T. (2018) · Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal · doi:10.1016/j.csbj.2018.07.004 · Cited by 796 · cited 3×
“1 [19] Electronic health records Shared decision making Interoperability, access control, data integrity 2 [20] Electronic health records Health data recording, storing and sharing Access control, interoperability 3 [21] Knowledge infrastructures Aid decision-making by presenting knowledge Data integrity, repudiation…”
BackgroundA Systematic Review of the Use of Blockchain in Healthcare
Hölbl, M., Kompara, M., Kamišalić, A., & Nemec Zlatolas, L. (2018) · Symmetry · doi:10.3390/sym10100470 · Cited by 780 · cited 3×
“To this end, parts of the method presented by Hölbl et al. were used and modified as appropriate [18].”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- blockchain.com [cited 2019 09.03]. Available from: https://www.blockchain.com/charts/n-transactions-total.
- Courtney, 1989, Some informal comments about integrity and the integrity workshop
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Smart wearable devices in cardiovascular care: Where we are and how to move forward
Bayoumy, K., Gaber, M., Elshafeey, A., Mhaimeed, O., Dineen, E. H., Marvel, F. A., Martin, S. S., Muse, E. D., Turakhia, M. P., Tarakji, K. G., et al. (2021) · Nature Reviews Cardiology · doi:10.1038/s41569-021-00522-7 · Cited by 829
Blockchain for healthcare data management: opportunities, challenges, and future recommendations
Yaqoob, I., Salah, K., Jayaraman, R., & Al-Hammadi, Y. (2021) · Neural Computing and Applications · doi:10.1007/s00521-020-05519-w · Cited by 687
Medical 4.0 technologies for healthcare: Features, capabilities, and applications
Haleem, A., Javaid, M., Pratap Singh, R., & Suman, R. (2022) · Internet of Things and Cyber-Physical Systems · doi:10.1016/j.iotcps.2022.04.001 · Cited by 468
Blockchain for the Internet of Vehicles Towards Intelligent Transportation Systems: A Survey
Mollah, M. B., Zhao, J., Niyato, D., Guan, Y. L., Yuen, C., Sun, S., Lam, K.-Y., & Koh, L. H. (2020) · IEEE Internet of Things Journal · doi:10.1109/jiot.2020.3028368 · Cited by 464
“A substantial effort has been highlighted to converge blockchain with smart health system in [39]–[44].”
BackgroundTandon, A., Dhir, A., Islam, A. K. M. N., & Mäntymäki, M. (2020) · Computers in Industry · doi:10.1016/j.compind.2020.103290 · Cited by 439
“While these SLRs have contributed to the extant body of knowledge, their focus has primarily been on synthesizing or delineating trends (e. g. Hasselgren et al., 2020) and areas of blockchain application (see Risius & Spohrer, 2017; Hölbl et al. 2018; Agbo et al. 2019; Jaoude & Saade, 2019 .”
Metadata
- Authors
- Hasselgren, A., Kralevska, K., Gligoroski, D., Pedersen, S. A., & Faxvaag, A.
- Affiliations
- Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NO)
- Corresponding author
- Hasselgren, Anton
- Venue
- International Journal of Medical Informatics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-02
- Volume
- 134
- Pages
- 104040
- ISSN
- 1386-5056 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2996452324
- Semantic Scholar
- e21700b05fc480d4f2c18462dbeaaf90dadb378d
- Cited by
- 676
- References
- 46
- Citations by year
- 2026: 58 · 2025: 98 · 2024: 123 · 2023: 135 · 2022: 127 · 2021: 109 · 2020: 26
- FWCI
- 11.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- International Journal of Medical Informatics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Blockchain Technology Applications and Security
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Blockchain Technology in Education and Learning
- Keywords
- blockchain, health care, electronic health records, personal health records, interoperability, data integrity, access control, provenance, Ethereum, Hyperledger Fabric, health education
- MeSH terms
- Blockchain, Delivery of Health Care, Humans, Health Records, Personal, Electronic Health Records, Quality Improvement, Health Information Exchange
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
