Cited by 66Electronic Health Records SystemsAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

The case for randomized controlled trials to assess the impact of clinical information systems

Open access
Liu, J. L. Y., Wyatt, J. C.·2011·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

There is a persistent view of a significant minority in the medical informatics community that the randomized controlled trial (RCT) has a limited role to play in evaluating clinical information systems. A common reason voiced by skeptics is that these systems are fundamentally different from drug interventions, so the RCT is irrelevant. There is an urgent need to promote the use of RCTs, given the shift to evidence-based policy and the need to demonstrate cost-effectiveness of these systems. The authors suggest returning to first principles and argue that what is required is clarity about how to match methods to evaluation questions. The authors address common concerns about RCTs, and the extent to which they are fallacious, and also discuss the challenges of conducting RCTs in informatics and alternative study designs when randomized trials are infeasible. While neither a perfect nor universal evaluation method, RCTs form an important part of an evaluator's toolkit.

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 · 10.1136/jamia.2010.010306

Cites

125 of 125 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 127 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Kaplan B. Evaluating informatics applicationsdsome alternative approaches, and call for methodological pluralism. Int J Med Inform 2001;64:39e56.
  2. Friedman CP, Wyatt JC. Evaluation Methods in Bio-Medical Informatics. 2nd edn. New York: Springer-Verlag, 2006.
  3. Rothman KJ, Greenland S. Modern Epidemiology. 2nd edn. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven, 1998.
  4. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, et al. The CONSORT Statement 2010 updated guidelines for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2010;340:c869.
  5. Liu JLY, Wyatt JC. The Impact of Telepsychiatry, Teledermatology, Teleent and Teleradiology on the Health Services: A Rapid Review. Portland, OR: Medicaid Evidence-Based Decisions Program, 2008.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Liu, J. L. Y., & Wyatt, J. C.
Affiliations
University of Dundee (GB)
Corresponding author
Liu, J. L. Y.
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
2011-03-01
Volume
18
Issue
2
Pages
173-180
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W2164176905
Cited by
66
References
127
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 9
FWCI
12.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Discovery Research Portal (University of Dundee) (publishedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Scottish Funding Council
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
randomized controlled trials, clinical information systems, evidence-based policy, cost-effectiveness, evaluation methodology
MeSH terms
Health Services Research, Humans, Information Systems, Research Design, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Evidence-Based Practice

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