Cited by 20Electronic Health Records SystemsMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsTechnology and Human Factors in Education and Health

Assessment of Health Information Technology Interventions in Evidence-Based Medicine: A Systematic Review by Adopting a Methodological Evaluation Framework

Open access
Christopoulou, Stella, Kotsilieris, Theodore, Anagnostopoulos, Ioannis·2018·Healthcare

Abstract

Background: The application of Health Information Technologies (HITs) can be an effective way to advance medical research and health services provision. The two-fold objective of this work is to: (i) identify and review state-of-the-art HITs that facilitate the aims of evidence-based medicine and (ii) propose a methodology for HIT assessment. Methods: The systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Furthermore, we consolidated existing knowledge in the field and proposed a Synthesis Framework for the Assessment of Health Information Technology (SF/HIT) in order to evaluate the joint use of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) along with HITs in the field of evidence-based medicine. Results: 55 articles met the inclusion criteria and refer to 51 (RCTs) published between 2008 and 2016. Significant improvements in healthcare through the use of HITs were observed in the findings of 31 out of 51 trials—60.8%. We also confirmed that RCTs are valuable tools for assessing the effectiveness, acceptability, safety, privacy, appropriateness, satisfaction, performance, usefulness and adherence. Conclusions: To improve health service delivery, RCTs apply and exhibit formalization by providing measurable outputs. Towards this direction, we propose the SF/HIT as a framework which may help researchers to carry out appropriate evaluations and extend their studies.

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 · 10.3390/healthcare6030109

Cites

88 of 88 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?

  • The synthesis framework for the assessment of health information technology (SF/HIT) was used to structure the evaluation because it included a whole system set of outcome variables.

    “The synthesis framework for the assessment of health information technology (SF/HIT) was used to structure the evaluation of the studies because it included a whole system set of outcome variables [31].”

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 90 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [17]Shekelle P.G. Goldzweig C.L. Costs and Benefits of Health Information Technology: An Updated Systematic Review Health Foundation London, UK 2009
  2. [27]Tang P. Key Capabilities of an Electronic Health Record System Institute of Medicine of the National Academies Washington, DC, USA 2003 25057672

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Christopoulou, S., Kotsilieris, T., & Anagnostopoulos, I.
Affiliations
  • University of Thessaly (GR)
  • Technological Educational Institute of Peloponnese (GR)
Corresponding author
Christopoulou, Stella
Venue
Healthcare
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2018-08-31
Volume
6
Issue
3
Pages
109
ISSN
2227-9032 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2889463378
Cited by
20
References
90
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1
FWCI
0.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Healthcare (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Thessaly Institutional Repository (University of Thessaly) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Technology and Human Factors in Education and Health
Keywords
health information technology, evidence-based medicine, randomized controlled trials, technology effectiveness, privacy, health care delivery

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