ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2017
Medicons: toward clinical examination diagrams standardization in medical documentation.
Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundElectronic patient records (EPRs) allow efficient and accurate medical documentation. Diagrams have traditionally been used to document clinical signs in patient notes. The interpretation of these diagrams may vary among doctors across a range of specialties, but this has never been tested previously. This study investigated how common diagrams were interpreted and explored the use of digitalized diagrams - Medicons in creating a common language to be used in digital clinical examination proformas. MATERIALS AND
methodsA cross-sectional survey utilizing a multiple-choice questionnaire was carried out across London hospitals. Seventeen digitalized examination diagrams were included in a multiple-choice questionnaire to test doctors' perception and explore their opinions of diagram usage. The questionnaire was sent to junior doctors in training.
resultsA total of 206 responses were received from 31 foundation year 1 trainees, 45 foundation year 2 trainees, 94 core surgical trainees and 36 core medical trainees. Diagrams were interpreted correctly, on average, 75% of the time. The majority of doctors (94%) felt that diagrams facilitated the understanding of clinical examination, documentation of pathologic site (98%) and improved the efficiency of documentation (89.8%). All doctors felt that diagrams may benefit overall medical care provision.
conclusionDigitalizing signs and symptoms in EPR will enhance clinical documentation and may contribute to better patient care. New initiatives need to be employed to increase the use of diagrams - Medicons, as young doctors perceived these to improve clinical documentation. Standardized electronic proformas should be included into EPR to improve the efficiency and accuracy of clinical examination documentation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.