Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38289660›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2024

Electronic Health Record and Semantic Issues Using Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources: Systematic Mapping Review.

Fouzia Amar, Alain April, Alain Abran

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Medical Digital Twin Technology for Interoperability: Challenges and Opportunities.Biomedical engineering and computational biology · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Semantic Difficulties in FHIR 'Conditions'.Studies in health technology and informatics · 2025
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Fouzia AmarÉcole de technologie supérieure - ETS, Montreal, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-1888-2019
Alain AprilÉcole de technologie supérieure - ETS, Montreal, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8675-4329
Alain AbranÉcole de technologie supérieure - ETS, Montreal, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2670-9061

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe increasing use of electronic health records and the Internet of Things has led to interoperability issues at different levels (structural and semantic). Standards are important not only for successfully exchanging data but also for appropriately interpreting them (semantic interoperability). Thus, to facilitate the semantic interoperability of data exchanged in health care, considerable resources have been deployed to improve the quality of shared clinical data by structuring and mapping them to the Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) standard.

objectiveThe aims of this study are 2-fold: to inventory the studies on FHIR semantic interoperability resources and terminologies and to identify and classify the approaches and contributions proposed in these studies.

methodsA systematic mapping review (SMR) was conducted using 10 electronic databases as sources of information for inventory and review studies published during 2012 to 2022 on the development and improvement of semantic interoperability using the FHIR standard.

resultsA total of 70 FHIR studies were selected and analyzed to identify FHIR resource types and terminologies from a semantic perspective. The proposed semantic approaches were classified into 6 categories, namely mapping (31/126, 24.6%), terminology services (18/126, 14.3%), resource description framework or web ontology language-based proposals (24/126, 19%), annotation proposals (18/126, 14.3%), machine learning (ML) and natural language processing (NLP) proposals (20/126, 15.9%), and ontology-based proposals (15/126, 11.9%). From 2012 to 2022, there has been continued research in 6 categories of approaches as well as in new and emerging annotations and ML and NLP proposals. This SMR also classifies the contributions of the selected studies into 5 categories: framework or architecture proposals, model proposals, technique proposals, comparison services, and tool proposals. The most frequent type of contribution is the proposal of a framework or architecture to enable semantic interoperability.

conclusionsThis SMR provides a classification of the different solutions proposed to address semantic interoperability using FHIR at different levels: collecting, extracting and annotating data, modeling electronic health record data from legacy systems, and applying transformation and mapping to FHIR models and terminologies. The use of ML and NLP for unstructured data is promising and has been applied to specific use case scenarios. In addition, terminology services are needed to accelerate their use and adoption; furthermore, techniques and tools to automate annotation and ontology comparison should help reduce human interaction.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsSemanticsDatabases, FactualDelivery of Health CareHumansLanguageEHRelectronic health recordHealth Level Seven International Fast Healthcare Interoperability ResourcesHL7 FHIRinteroperability, web ontology languagemachine learningMLnatural language processingNLPontologyOWLRDFresource description frameworksemanticterminology

Identifiers

PMID38289660
PMCPMC10865191

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.