ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2007
An ontology of bacteria to help physicians to compare antibacterial spectra.
Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparison of two kinds of interface, based on guided navigation or usability principles, for improving the adoption of computerized decision support systems: application to the prescription of antibiotics.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
General practitioners (GPs) may lack specialist microbiological knowledge, making it difficult for them to use documents concerning antibacterial spectra provided by French health authorities. We have developed a tool to help GPs to compare antibacterial spectra, based on an ontology of bacteria generated using OWL-DL language. This tool makes it possible to search for information concerning the antibiotic susceptibility of given bacteria, regardless of the way in which this information is expressed in the document. Applied to the whole document, the tool made 4528 spectra explicit, whereas only 3471 could be understood without microbiological reasoning. A preliminary study showed that the performance of this tool was similar to that of an expert microbiologist (94 to 98% correct responses) and better than that of unassisted GPs (84-90% correct responses).
Indexed as
Identifiers
18693825PMC2655804What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.