Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15846701›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2005

Clinical decision support systems for neonatal care.

K Tan, P R F Dear, S J Newell

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Automated oxygen delivery for preterm infants with respiratory dysfunction.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Clinical decision support systems for neonatal care.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2005
    Pooled it
  6. Impact of Complex Quality-Interventions on Patient Outcome: A Systematic Overview of Systematic Reviews.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing
    Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. 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

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

K Tan
P R F Dear
S J Newell
St James's University Hospital · GBMonash University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical decision support systems (CDSS) are computer-based information systems used to integrate clinical and patient information to provide support for decision-making in patient care. They may be useful in aiding the diagnostic process, the generation of alerts and reminders, therapy critiquing/planning, information retrieval, and image recognition and interpretation. CDSS for use in adult patients have been evaluated using randomised control trials and their results analysed in systematic reviews. There is as yet no systematic review on CDSS use in neonatal medicine.

objectivesTo examine whether the use of clinical decision support systems has an effect on 1. the mortality and morbidity of newborn infants and 2. the performance of physicians treating them SEARCH STRATEGY: The standard search method of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group was used. Searches were made of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2004), MEDLINE (from 1966 to August 2004), EMBASE (1980-2004), CINAHL (1982 to August 2004) and AMED (1985 to August 2004). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials which compared the effects of CDSS versus no CDSS in the care of newborn infants. Trials which compared CDSS against other CDSS were also considered. The eligible interventions were CDSS for computerised physician order entry, computerised physiological monitoring, diagnostic systems and prognostic systems. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Studies were assessed for eligibility using a standard pro forma. Methodological quality was assessed independently by the different investigators. MAIN

resultsTwo studies fitting the selection criteria were found for computer aided prescribing and one study for computer aided physiological monitoring.Computer-aided prescribing: one study (Cade 1997) examined the effects of computerised prescribing of parenteral nutrition ordering. No significant effects on short-term outcomes were found and longer term outcomes were not studied. The second study (Balaguer 2001) investigated the effects of a database program in aiding the calculation of neonatal drug dosages. It was found that the time taken for calculation was significantly reduced and there was a significant reduction in the number of calculation errors.Computer-aided physiological monitoring: one eligible study (Cunningham 1998) was found which examined the effects of computerised cot side physiological trend monitoring and display. There were no significant effects on mortality, volume of colloid infused, frequency of blood gases sampling (samples per day) or severe (Papile Grade 4) intraventricular haemorrhage. Published data did not permit us to analyse effects on long-term neurodevelopmental outcome. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere are very limited data from randomised trials on which to assess the effects of clinical decision support systems in neonatal care. Further evaluation of CDSS using randomised controlled trials is warranted.

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalDecision Making, Computer-AssistedDrug Therapy, Computer-AssistedHumansInfant, NewbornMonitoring, PhysiologicPerinatal CareRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID15846701
PMCPMC8767604
OpenAlexW2101633425

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.