Skip to main content

Table 3 Level of evidence as classified by the study design for the publications included in this review. A level of evidence as ‘0’ was assigned if article could not be assessed because it was (a) a peer-review publication that stated translational benefits of the LHS but no figures provided, or (b) it was a non-peer reviewed article i.e. grey literature

From: Learning health systems using data to drive healthcare improvement and impact: a systematic review

 

LHS

Study

GRADE Level of Evidence

Notes

1

ePRO Duke cancer clinics LHS

[19]

Observational, case series pre/post outcomes

low

 

2

Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program (SCOAP)

[20]

Observational, case series

low

 

3

ImproveCareNow Chronic Care Network

[21]

Observational, case series

low

 

[22]

Qualitative case evaluation, examining LHS user interaction, technology, content management, and community engagement

?

Qualitative evaluation

4

NUCATS Institute LHS

[24]

Observational, case series

low

 

[25]

Observational, case series

low

 

[23]

RCT

high

 

[26]

Observational, case series

low

 

5

Ottawa Hospital Lung Cancer LHS

[28]

Observational, case series pre/post outcomes

low

 

[27]

Observational, case series pre/post outcomes

low

 

6

PEDS-CHOIR

[29]

Observational, cross-sectional cases

low

 

7

University of Alabama at Birmingham Hospital, USA

[30]

Improvements stated, no figures provided

0

No figures provided

8

ePPOC

[31]

Observational, case series

low

 

9

Community Health Applied Research Network (CHARN)

[33]

Qualitative evaluation of the adoption, expansion, and diffusion of the national LHS model

?

Qualitative evaluation

[32]

Observational, cross-sectional cases, other improvements stated but no figures reported

low

 

10

KPNC 30 primary care practices at 13 medical facilities across four counties

[34]

Pragmatic, provider-randomized, multi-site clinical trial

high

 

11

Connected Health Cities

[35]

Correspondence article in journal

0

Grey literature

[61]

Final report, observational, case studies reported

0

Grey literature

12

PCORnet®

[38]

Interrupted time series without parallel control

low

 

[39]

Two of more single arms

low

 

[36]

RCT, large multisite

high

 

[37]

RCT, large multisite

high

 

13

Swedish Rheumatology Quality Register

[40]

Improvements stated, no figures provided

0

No figures provided

[42]

Observational, 3 case descriptions provided

low

 

[41]

Observational, case series

low

 

14

University of Wisconsin Health LHS

[46]

Observational, case series

low

 

[44]

Interrupted time series without parallel control

low

 

[43]

Cluster RCT, 4 sites

high

 

[45]

Observational, case series pre/post outcomes

low

 

15

Wound Care LHS

[48]

Observational, case series

low

 

[47]

Observational, case series

low

 

16

Alberta Strategic Clinical Networks

[50]

Observational, case series pre/post outcomes

low

 

[49]

Observational, case series pre/post outcomes.

Thematic analysis on documents & interviews

low

Mixed-methods

17

Geisinger Health Systems LHS

[51]

Improvements stated, no figures provided

0

No figures provided

18

Cystic Fibrosis Foundation Patient Registry

[52]

Observational, case series

low

 

19

Kaiser Permanente Northern California

[53]

Interrupted time series without parallel control

low

 

[54]

Observational, case series pre/post outcomes

low

 

20

Distributed Ambulatory Research in Therapeutics Network (DARTNet)

[55]

Observational, case series

low

 

21

Optum Labs LHS

[56]

Improvements stated, no figures provided

0

No figures provided

[57]

Comparative study with concurrent controls

medium

 

[58]

Observational, case series

low

 

23

IDEA4PS

[59]

Observational, case series

low

 

[60]

Observational, case series pre/post outcomes.

Ethnography and interviews

low

Mixed-methods

  1. Level of evidence was not determined for qualitative approaches and instead notes on the qualitative approach are provided