Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11279772›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2001

Computerised advice on drug dosage to improve prescribing practice.

R T Walton, E Harvey, S Dovey, N Freemantle

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Computerized advice on drug dosage to improve prescribing practice.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Computerized clinical decision support for prescribing: provision does not guarantee uptake.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Monitoring for adverse drug reactions.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2006
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. A review on systematic reviews of health information system studies.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

R T WaltonUniversity of Oxford Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Imperial Cancer Research Fund General Practice Research Group, Institute of Health Sciences, Old Road, Headington, Oxford, UK, OX3 7LF. rwalton@ermine.ox.ac.uk
E Harvey
S Dovey
N Freemantle
American Academy of Family Physicians · USThe Honourable Society of Lincoln's Inn · GBUniversity of Birmingham · GBUniversity of Leeds · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMaintaining therapeutic concentrations of toxic drugs is a complex task. Several computer systems have been designed to help doctors determine optimum drug dosage. Significant improvements in health could be achieved if computer advice was shown to be beneficial.

objectivesTo assess whether computer support for drug dosage benefits patients and hence whether it should be more widely available. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group specialised register (June 1996), MEDLINE (1966 to June 1996), EMBASE (1980 to June 1996), hand searched the journal Therapeutic Drug Monitoring (1979 to June 1996), reference lists of articles and contacted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials, interrupted time series and controlled before and after studies of computerised advice on drug dosage. The participants were health professionals responsible for patient care. The outcomes were: any objectively measured change in the behaviour of the health care provider (such as changes in the dose of drug used); any change in the health of patients, resulting from computer support (such as adverse reactions to drugs). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. MAIN

resultsFifteen trials involving 1229 patients were included. The drugs studied were theophylline, warfarin, heparin, aminoglycosides, nitroprusside, lignocaine, oxytocin, fentanyl and midazolam. Interventions usually targeted doctors although some studies attempted to influence prescribing by pharmacists and nurses. All included studies took place on acute medical conditions in hospital settings. Although all studies used reliable outcome measures, sample size was often small and only two studies reported a sample size calculation. Computer support for drug dosage gave significant benefits reducing: 1. The time to achieve therapeutic control (standardised mean difference -0.44, 95% CI -0.70 to -0.17); 2. Toxic drug levels (risk difference -0.12, 95% CI -0.24 to -0.01); 3. Adverse reactions (risk difference -0.06, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.00); 4. Length of hospital stay (standardised mean difference -0.32, 95% CI -0.60 to -0.04). There was a tendency for computer support to result in higher doses of drugs, although this did not reach statistical significance. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsThis systematic review provides evidence to support the use of computer assistance in determining drug dosage. Further clinical trials are necessary to determine whether the benefits seen in specialist applications can be realised in general use.

Indexed as

Drug Therapy, Computer-AssistedPractice Patterns, Physicians'HumansRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID11279772
OpenAlexW4247789936

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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 OpenQuestion graph.