Submit a manuscript Sign up for article alerts Contact us

RSS

Latest comments

Record Linkage Study (Paul Tully, 28 March 2014)

There was an excellent study conducted by Curtin University in Australia, Center for Data Linkage, part of the Healthcare college at the university   In it they compared the results of 10+ record linkage software vendors on record linkage accuracy for small, medium, and large (Millions) of records   The top winners were Data Ladder's Datamatch Enterprise solution IBM's Infosphere and SAS   Overall it was an excellent study and really showed how some better software can drastically improve record linkage in population studies read full comment

Comment on: Churches et al. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 4:9

Sociodemographic data (Neil Turner, 26 April 2013)

We have a good bit more of that now and are working on an analysis. read full comment

Comment on: Bartlett et al. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 12:87

Socio-demographic data (Anne Marie Cunningham, 15 February 2013)

Thank you for your paper.

I'm disappointed that more socio-demographic data is not presented in this paper if available on the large number of participants. Is it available?

Best wishes,
Anne Marie read full comment

Comment on: Bartlett et al. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 12:87

Of course GS will find what you already know exists (Tuulevi Ovaska, 13 February 2013)

Dear... read full comment

Comment on: Gehanno et al. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 13:7

Interesting but...short shrift to expert searching (Michelle Fiander, 13 February 2013)

That Google Scholar is a one stop source for searching because a selection of studies included in a selection of systematic reviews can be found in GS displays, I believe, faulty logic--perhaps an association fallacy. Whether or not I am correct regarding the logic, I am bit more concerned that the authors give very short shrift to the importance of the search interface (technology aspect) and knowledge of indexing (understanding gained by experience and training) which are both integral to searching for systematic reviews. While GS and other Web applications are absolutely fantastic (no argument from me on this point), neither the search interface, nor the scope and depth of GS is yet, in my opinion, sufficiently well defined or organized to support comprehensive searching for systematic... read full comment

Comment on: Gehanno et al. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 13:7

Google Scholar as a single source for systematic reviews has not been justified (Alison Weightman, 13 February 2013)

This paper forms part of an important debate. Google Scholar (GS) is an increasingly powerful search tool that should rightly be considered by systematic review searchers. Research studies comparing GS to other established search tools are... read full comment

Comment on: Gehanno et al. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 13:7

Correction of interpretation of equation 1 (Athanasios Tsalatsanis, 12 May 2011)

Dear Editor,

I would like to thank Drs. Jef Van den Ende and Olivier Koole for their comment and to acknowledge the correction of the interpretation of equation 1 pointed out.

Sincerely,

Athanasios Tsalatsanis
read full comment

Comment on: Tsalatsanis et al. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 10:51

Correction of interpretation of equation 1. (Jef Van den Ende, 15 March 2011)

To the editor,

We recently read the article “A regret theory approach to decision curve analysis: A novel method for eliciting decision makers’ preferences and decision making” by Tsalatsanis et al. in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 2010, 10:51.
We would like to discuss equation 1, because we are convinced the interpretation that follows in the text is erroneous. The equation states:
Pt=1/(1+(U1-U3)/(U4-U2))
where Pt is the treatment threshold, U1 to U4 the utilities to respectively treating a diseased, treating a non diseased, not treating a diseased, and not treating a non diseased.
If regret U4-U2 is zero, (U1-U3)/(U4-U2) becomes infinite (not “undefined”), so also 1+ (U1-U3)/(U4-U2). Pt will equal 1/infinite... read full comment

Comment on: Tsalatsanis et al. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 10:51

To 'tailor' information design approach (Sharon Harper, 21 September 2010)

Thought-provoking research and great bibliography! My metaphor would be an accordion expanding the depth and breadth of the accessible information according to the user's preference.

Sharon

graduate of Kent State (Ohio) Information Architecture & Knowledge Management, Masters read full comment

Comment on: Yardley et al. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 10:52

COMMENT ON THE ARTICLE “SIXTEEN YEARS OF ICPC USE IN NORWEGIAN PRIMARY CARE” BY BOTSIS ET AL. (Marianne Rosendal, 11 June 2010)

We welcome the publication of a paper on the validity of the International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC)1 but have major concerns about the methods employed and conclusions drawn in this article. We urgently request the authors to consider our comments below and reinterpret their results.

The ICPC is a classification designed for primary care worldwide,2 and therefore has to meet 2 primary requirements. First, it must accommodate episodes of care from their starting-points, which often consist of non-specific symptoms or complaints that patients present to their clinicians, as well as specific clinical diagnoses (end-point classification). This makes ICPC different from secondary care classification systems. Second, it must also be applicable in developing countries... read full comment

Comment on: Botsis et al. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 10:11

Updated [2] reference (Browsing the Browsers) (Erik Sundvall, 23 January 2009)

After the submission of this BMC paper the papers from KR-MED 2008 have been published online at http://sunsite.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Publications/CEUR-WS/Vol-410/Thus, reference [2] (Rogers J, Bodenreider O: SNOMED CT: Browsing the Browsers) is available from:http://sunsite.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Publications/CEUR-WS/Vol-410/Paper06.pdf read full comment

Comment on: Sundvall et al. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 8:S7

Response to Connecting for Health's press briefings (Henry Potts, 11 August 2008)

In responding to press interest in this article, the Connecting for Health press office have argued that the situation with Choose and Book has moved on significantly since we collected data in 2006. In making that case, they have drawn heavily on the January 2008 National Patient Choice Survey of 72,000 patients, http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsStatistics/DH_085329 . In this, patients were asked whether they were given a choice of hospital for their first outpatient appointment. The January 2008 survey found that only 46% said yes (38% for their Hillingdon sample). There has been a consistent figure of between 40-50% nationally from the November 2006 survey onwards, and similar results were found in the National Patient Survey on primary care... read full comment

Comment on: Green et al. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 8:36

EBM mischaracterized (Eddy Lang, 26 June 2008)

Intriguing study but you've missed the boat on one of the 2 central tenets of EBM (the other relating to the hierarchy of evidence). What is important to remember is that evidence alone is never sufficient to drive decision-making and a consideration of context, values and preferences are crucial. It is no wonder then that only the cardiologists got the correct interpretation of the systematic reviews that were presented to them. Only they were able to appreciate that most of this research was done in an era when MIs were treated very differently and that the significant increase in hypotension and heart block that comes with magnesium is nothing to sneeze at.The authors of this Cochrane also got it right by concluding that: Owing to the likelihood of publication bias and marked... read full comment

Comment on: Shrier et al. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 8:19

Could the programme code be made available under a free, open source license? (Tim Churches, 22 March 2007)

The authors describe a useful software tool for studying hypothetical disease outbreaks. The tool would be of even greater utility if it were to be made freely available to as many other public health practitioners as possible. The optimal manner in which to do this would be to release the programme code and associated documentation under a free, open source license - any one of the licenses listed at http://www.opensource.org The software code can be made available through one of the free open source software respositories, such as http://www.sourceforge.net or http://code.google.com/hosting/This would allow those with access to the proprietary MapInfo GIS software to immediately use and adapt the software, and would also allow others to study the code and potentially translate it for use... read full comment

Comment on: Watkins et al. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 7:4

Does the Syracuse health care utilization data include anything from family practice? (Oliver Frank, 18 April 2006)

The data sharing described in this article is clearly exciting and useful.Family physicians care for most people most of the time, but I didn't see any mention of collecting data from family physicians and using those data to help inform all parts of the health system about what is happening in the community. Patients being cared for by family practice are using the health care system, so one would expect that information collected in family practice would form part of 'health care utilization data'.I am interested to know the reasons for the omission of family practice data from the Syracuse system. read full comment

Comment on: Lagoe et al. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 6:17

Comparing de-identification methods (Jules Berman, 31 March 2006)

Bruce Beckwith and colleagues have made an important contribution to the field of data scrubbing and data de-identification. To their credit, they made all their source code and Java files publicly available and free. The paper is well written and data-driven.I have discussed the issue of data scrubbing strategies with Dr. Beckwith on several occasions. Basically, there seems to be two published approaches. One approach is to parse text and remove all the identifying words. This is the way that Bruce Beckwith recommends.The second way is to parse text and to extract EVERY WORD EXCEPT words from an approved list of non-identifying words. That's the strategy that I have previously published.Berman JJ. Concept-match medical data scrubbing. How pathology text can be used in research.... read full comment

Comment on: Beckwith et al. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 6:12

This is the time for SOA (Didi Dotan, 12 January 2006)

I was very impressed to read about the caCORE system in this publication. The system was thoroughly designed, the SDK is impressive and so are the surrounding infrastructures. The key problem is UML. I hate UML and so do most of the programmers I know and work with. In a world where Microsoft rules and everybody wants to use agile methods, the time for UML and meta-models is over. I would suggest using a slightly different way to be interoperable without forcing everybody to use java, tomcat and MySQL. Suggest using a service oreitned approach based on ABC:A – Addressing, where the service resides.B – Binding, the carrier used (HTTP/HTTPS and the likes)C – Contract, an interface to the services. I would then go and suggest using an internet based registry like UDDI, to... read full comment

Comment on: Phillips et al. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 6:2

Lack of standard methods for evaluation of askMedline (Julio Bonis, 16 March 2005)

In the paper of Fontelo et als, a information retrieval system is described.The objective that the authors aim to reach is clever and important forallowing the practice of Evidence Based Medicine. However, the criteria for evaluation and validation of the tool is in someway esoteric, and does not fit with the standar criteria for informationretrieval systems evaluation.Specifically, the authors do not refer to the precision of the system as isdescribed eslewhere[1]. It could be desiderable to know, at least the meanof the precision of the system for the testing set (POEMs and CAT), in orderto be able to compare with other information retrieval systems.In conclusion, I miss some of the standard methods for information retrievalevaluation in the, in the other hand very well oriented, work of... read full comment

Comment on: Fontelo et al. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 5:5