Reply to “On Clinical Utility and Systematic Reporting in Case Studies of Healthcare Process Mining. Comment on: 10.3390/ijerph17041348 ‘Towards the Use of Standardised Terms in Clinical Case Studies for Process Mining in Healthcare’ ”
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Helm, E.; Lin, A.M.; Baumgartner, D.; Lin, A.C.; Küng, J. Reply to “On Clinical Utility and Systematic Reporting in Case Studies of Healthcare Process Mining. Comment on: 10.3390/ijerph17041348 ‘Towards the Use of Standardised Terms in Clinical Case Studies for Process Mining in Healthcare’ ”. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8583. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17228583
Helm E, Lin AM, Baumgartner D, Lin AC, Küng J. Reply to “On Clinical Utility and Systematic Reporting in Case Studies of Healthcare Process Mining. Comment on: 10.3390/ijerph17041348 ‘Towards the Use of Standardised Terms in Clinical Case Studies for Process Mining in Healthcare’ ”. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(22):8583. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17228583
Chicago/Turabian StyleHelm, Emmanuel, Anna M. Lin, David Baumgartner, Alvin C. Lin, and Josef Küng. 2020. "Reply to “On Clinical Utility and Systematic Reporting in Case Studies of Healthcare Process Mining. Comment on: 10.3390/ijerph17041348 ‘Towards the Use of Standardised Terms in Clinical Case Studies for Process Mining in Healthcare’ ”" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 22: 8583. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17228583