Trends in computerized provider order entry: 20-year bibliometric overview
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Drug-related problems (DRPs) can lead to serious health issues and have significant economic impacts on healthcare systems. One solution to address this issue is the use of computerized physician order entry systems (CPOE), which can help prevent DRPs by reducing the risk of medication errors. Objective: The purpose of this study is to provide an analysis on scientific production of the past 20 years in order to describe trends in academic publishing on CPOE and to identify the major topics as well as the predominant actors (journals, countries) involved in this field. Methods: A PubMed search was carried out to extract articles related to computerized provider order entry during the period January 1st 2003- December 31st 2022 using a specific query. Data were downloaded from PubMed in Extensible Markup Language (XML) and were processed through a dedicated parser. Results: A total of 2,946 articles were retrieved among 623 journals. One third of these articles were published in eight journals. Publications grew strongly from 2002 to 2006, with a dip in 2008 followed by an increase again in 2009. After 2009, there follows a decreasing until 2022.The most producing countries are the USA with 51.39% of the publication over the period by France (3.80%), and Canada (3.77%). About disciplines, the top 3 is: "medical informatics" (21.62% of articles), "pharmacy" (19.04%), and "pediatrics" (6.56%). Discussion: This study provides an overview of publication trends related to CPOE, which exhibited a significant increase in the first decade of the 21st century followed by a decline after 2009. Possible reasons for this decline include the emergence of digital health tools beyond CPOE, as well as healthcare professionals experiencing alert fatigue of the current system. Conclusion: Future research should focus on analyzing publication trends in the field of medical informatics and decision-making tools to identify other areas of interest that may have surpassed the development of CPOE.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.201 | 0.264 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".